Applying Critical Ethnographic Methodology and Method in
Accounting Research
Lecturer
University
of Wollongong, Australia
Email
krudkin@uow.edu.au
Keywords: ethnography, ethnographic, methodology,
method, reflexivity, ethical
Applying Critical Ethnographic Methodology and Method in
Accounting Research
Abstract
This paper provides a
perspective on the methodological integrity of doing critical ethnographies.
Critical ethnography investigates context specific social and cultural uses of
accounting in an organization. This
paper describes the nature and genealogy of ethnographic research. While this methodology satisfies calls for
context specific and ideologically aware research, researchers need to be cognizant
of their constitutive role in the ethnographic research they produce. Key limitations in ethnographic research
identified are the limiting factors of language, the morphing effects of
context, imperfections of the researcher, and ethical considerations
surrounding the verification and ownership of data. Despite these limitations, strengths in this research methodology
are determined to outweigh the limitations identified. Ethnographic methodology has the advantage
of permitting the research process to acknowledge ideological structures and
values inherent in accounting systems, provides a sensitivity to gender and
marginalized others, and exploits the richness of the use of language, text and
symbol.
The researching
of accounting as a social and cultural practice is not a new idea (Burchell et
al. 1980, Tinker et al. 1982, Chua 1986(a), Chua 1986(b), Laughlin 1987, Lehman
and Tinker 1987, Gaffikin 1988, Hines 1988, Morgan 1998, Francis 1990, Dillard
1991, Arrington and Francis 1993, Napier 1998). It is also realized that economic accounts are given in diverse
cultural, social, political and economic settings (Arrington and Francis, 1993,
p. 107). Context embraces cultural, social, political, and
historical traditions in which accounting is practiced. Flamholtz argues that
accounting should not be studied as a "process in isolation of the
organizational context in which the accounting function operates" (1983,
p. 153). Hopwood (1987) suggested that little had been done to understand how
accounting impinges upon and changes the way an organization operates. He called for studies of underlying
accounting processes, and their significance to the organization and to
society. Capps et al. suggest "little attention has been devoted to
explaining the mechanisms of the emergence and reproduction of cultures over
time" (1989, p. 219).
Recognizing the
need for social, cultural and contextual based research does not give guidance
on how to undertake such research.
Researchers cognizant of the social nature of accounting seek
appropriate methodologies to sensitively research the contextual applicatons of
accounting in an organization. Critical ethnography is an
established means to this end. The aim
of this paper is to provide a perspective and raise debate on issues of
methodological and methodical integrity in current critical ethnographic
research in accounting.
It is incumbent upon
accounting, in embracing the interdisciplinary methodology of ethnography, to
recognize the controversies surrounding the methodology. The online Webster Dictionary (1999) defines
ethnography as "the study and systematic recording of human cultures; also
a descriptive work produced from such research". Parker and Roffey (1997,
p. 217) state that ethnomethodology “focuses on the ways in which research
subjects make sense of their world”. Ethnography is an interdisciplinary tool
and traditionally we associate it with the field of anthropology and studies of
difference in various communities and cultures around the world.
Ethnography is a descriptive
account of what is lived and understood of a culture. This culture is itself a
contextual process that is ongoing, elusive and constantly modified. It describes both interaction and setting,
and should be concerned with social behaviour outside as well as inside the
site (Wolcott 1975, pp. 24-25). It is a
joint act in which the researcher is the centre of the research act (Denzin
1971, p. 58). Ethnography is not
identified by the methods it employs, but rather by its aims, "to discover
and disclose socially acquired and shared understandings necessary to be a
member of a specified social unit" (Van Maanen 1982, p. 103). It is a cultural description emerging from a
long and intimate relationship.
Ethnography has been used in
accounting research because at the micro level all organizations whether they
be in commercial, private and not for profit sectors too have their own
cultures. In these organisations
members interact with each other while at the same time interact with
prevailing technologies and external environments. Accounting is an intrinsic technology to all such organizations,
whether the doing of accounting is for an organisation’s own record-keeping, commercial
interactions, or the meeting of statutory obligations.
We recognize ethnography as
a qualitative approach, because rather than purporting data can be gathered and
measured numerically, and generalized in a quantified fashion, it has a
preference for non-numerical research methods using fieldwork, participant
observation, and interviewing. We know
ethnographic data to be context specific, because it is unique site-suggested
data, which cannot be replicated. Context is seen as an important influence
causing change on phenomenon, that these changes are not clearly visible in
research methods that do not consider the micro level context. In this way
ethnography is inter-actionist because it concerns itself with
micro-sociological and situational analysis.
It is also humanistic because it uses reflexive sociology and
acknowledges pluralistic implications of social research. Consequently ethnography embodies a critique
of positivism (Faulkner 1982, p. 69), and its methods are fundamentally
different to positivism's research methods (Wilson 1983, p. 1). Unlike
quantitative approaches, which are interested in determining "how
much", and where a meaning is assumed and measures are assigned to it;
qualitative approaches to research are interested in the questions "what
and why?" Qualitative research
seeks meaning, definition, analogy or metaphor to characterize something
(Faulkner 1982, p. 32). It is these
attributes of ethnographic method that make it an appropriate methodology for
investigating the presence and operation of accounting in an organization. It offers a means of exposing and
investigating belief systems associated with accounting practice, and is
sensitive to and tolerant of the protean in a context.
Genealogy and The Two
Schools of Ethnographic Methodology
While ethnography is a
methodology facilitating critical research of accounting, those accounting
researchers using this methodology should not be innocent of the assumptions
and limitations of the tool they have borrowed. Ethnography is often used in accounting research as a uniform and
unproblematic methodology (Tinker 1998, p. 16). Accounting research cannot naively accept the ethnographic form
as one blanket methodology, innocent of its internal debates, limitations and
assumptions.
Ethnography originates in
anthropology, and is part of a strong research tradition of sociology (Becker
1958, Brown 1977, Crapanzo 1980, 1986; Shostak 1981, Dwyer 1982, Marcus and
Cushman 1982, Kreiger 1983, Edmonson 1984, Mulkay 1985, Clifford et al. 1986,
Marcus 1986, Geertz 1988, Van Maanen 1988, Ashmore 1989, Dorst 1989, Rose 1989,
Atkinson 1990, Laughlin 1987, Sanjeck 1990, Wolcott 1990, Hammersley 1993[a],
1993[b]). It exposes the beliefs,
social structures and technologies used in a culture.
The term
"ethnography" has not developed as a blanket one. Coffey et. al. (1996, p. 1.2) suggest that
ethnographic research is currently characterized by variety. The literature reveals two key schools of
thought in this approach to research. The first school regards the presence of
the researcher in the culture being researched as a disinterested and objective
observer. The second school of thought
acknowledges the presence of the researcher in the culture being researched as
problematic, and a disturbance to the culture.
Both these approaches are now discussed more fully.
Smith (1978, p. 111)
describes the approach taken by ethnographers such as Erickson (1975),
Levi-Strauss (1963), and Wolcott (1975), as one extreme where ethnography is
regarded as telling the story of a group, organization or community. Hammersley
(1993[a]) also supports such an approach.
In accounting literature this is also the unitary view of ethnography
presented by Parker and Roffey (1997, p. 217). This earlier view of ethnography
holds that the subjects of the studies and the consumers of the ethnography
were separate, morally remote and isolated from the story being told (Geertz
1989, pp. 132-135).
This approach is in contrast
to more recent voices in the anthropological field (Tyler 1985, 1986; Clifford 1986[a], 1986[b], 1988; Crapanzo
1986, Van Maanen 1982, 1988; Atkinson 1992, Ashmore 1989). These ethnographers acknowledge their
participation, subjectivity, partiality and contingency, as well as the
pluralistic nature of their interpretive observations. This school approaches
the doing of ethnography as exposing multiple, pluralistic and contradictory
observations, interrelationships, and meanings. The presence of the researcher in the writing of the ethnographic
text is also seen as problematic, for example Woolgar (1988, p. 16) suggests
the researcher must pay attention to the juxtaposition of image and caption in
the writing of the ethnographic text.
That is, the researcher must reconcile what is observed with what is
said, acknowledging their own role in the construction of the
interpretation. The researcher is not
morally removed from the research produced.
This paper supports the
second approach to ethnography described above, arguing accounting
ethnographers should be cognizant of the various approaches to doing
ethnography. Accounting researchers
should overtly consider the challenges, limitations and opportunities of doing
ethnographies of accounting.
Methodological integrity requires accounting ethnographers to do more
than merely tell a story, and seek meanings and understandings of actors in
their site. Accounting researchers of
critical ethnographies should acknowledge the presence, bias and processes of
themselves as researchers, using reflexivity and textual construction and the
implications of this on the theoretical framework they use (Tinker 1998, pp.
21-22).
Contemporary ethnography is not unproblematic,
and cannot be seen as a purely methodological category. The ethnographic enterprise now carries with
it connotations of theoretical, epistemological and ethical controversy. We cannot remain innocent about the methods
of data collection for social and cultural exploration, or the methods we use
to reconstruct and represent social worlds”
Coffey
et. al. (1996, p. 1.2)
Significant limitations of ethnographic methodology
identified include the limiting attributes of language, the morphing effect of
context, the limitations of the researcher themselves, and the problem of
verification of data and ownership of the data collected.
Ethnography
necessitates language, whether oral, text form, narrative, or in symbols is the
tool through which data is gathered, and interpretations about that data are
communicated. Wilson (1983, p. 7)
proposes that language is a limiting factor in ethnographic research. Language is limiting in two ways; firstly in
that there are concepts embedded in any language, and secondly in the
rhetorical nature of language.
The first way in which language is limiting
is you must have a word to describe, understand and communicate concepts and
ideas. The strength of your
understanding depends upon the right words existing and the intended meaning
being attributed to those words by other individuals. Language used by both subjects and researcher is embedded with
one set of concepts, screening other concepts out by its use. Such use of language frames (and implicitly
limits) previous experiences, observations and thought. Van Maanen (1982, pp. 103-104) argues that
this limitation can be somewhat overcome if the participant observed acquires
knowledge of the language spoken in the setting, undertakes first-hand some
activities, and works intensively with a few informants drawn from the
setting.
The second way language has been criticized
in the doing of ethnography is for its reliance upon the narrative text. Since the Enlightenment study has been
separated between rhetorical language and science. Where science came to be seen as a representation of reason,
logic, methods and evidence, rhetoric was seen as a tool of arguments and
persuasion that used the methods of opinion and ornamentation. Such a dichotomy permitted the belief in a
scientific neutral language relying upon observation that clearly distinguished
between the observer and the observed.
This understanding infers a distance between the researcher and the
researched (Coffey et al. 1996, p. 3.1) and enjoys a privileged position. However, this dichotomy denies that
scientific accounts and texts make use of the narrative. Czarniawska-Joerges (1995, p. 2) suggests that everyday
wisdom is expressed in narrative knowledge.
She also argues that the dividing line between what is 'scientific' and
what is 'narrative' is blurred, as stories and metaphors are found in
scientific texts and folk tales and fictions are built upon facts. Cultural systems of interpretation include
language, discourse, logic and narrative (Bruner 1990, p. 34). Llewellyn (1999, p. 221) argues that
narratives are used in accounting research to ground theoretical arguments, as
well as being used to present the argument making of organizational members.
Critical
ethnographic method rejects criticisms of using subjectivity in its texts. It
is argued that rather than taking the nature of a text narrative for granted,
acknowledging the innate partiality, argument, persuasion, opinion and
ornamentation of a text brings to light the limitation of authority in the
ethnographic text, and is ethically sound.
Smith (1978) and Olesen (1994) as cited in Coffey et al. (1996, p. 4.2)
argue that ethnographic texts privilege the voice of the author’s accounts and
experience over other members of the culture, and may give visibility to
dominating groups in that culture.
Wilson (1983, p. 13) suggests that it is difficult to get a picture of
the complete distribution of attitudes in a large organization. Any attempt to do this, or obtain new
information, is done in a calculated fashion.
The language used then becomes constitutive in that it creates and
constructs meanings of the culture described.
This implies a cultural relativism that has moral and epistemological
overtones.
To address this limitation, Coffey et al.
(1996, p. 1.3) identify two approaches taken in the ethnographic
literature. The first is the use
of “thick description” of Geertz (1988)
that is employed by interpretive anthropologists. The second approach to overcoming the limitations of language as
a boundary is that used by symbolic interactionists, who place language at the
centre of a constructed view of reality.
They implore the use of complexity in text, celebrating the messy,
fragmented, and creative. Textual
devices and a mixing of genres such as a dialogic approach, drama and poetry
and autobiographical work is seen as fragmenting authoritative voices in
texts. Coffey et al. (1996) identify
Mulkay (1985), Dwyer (1977, 1979), Holquist (1990) and Allan (1994) as
supporters of this approach. Marcus (1986 p. 169) refers
to Giddens (1979) who notes the central problem of "the integration of
action perspectives". Clifford
suggests that an ethnographic text is an allegorical voice encompassing sounding
theoretical and interpretive constructs.
As all aspects of the ethnographic text are allegorical, none are nor
should be privileged above the rest (Clifford 1986(b), p. 103).
A
second significant limitation of ethnographic methodology is that any temporal
study has imposed upon it changing contexts.
The environment in which the study is located is continuously
shifting. This is restricting in two
ways, externally and internally to the study.
Firstly
from an external viewpoint a snapshot of the organization at a place in history
over a period of time is only possible, and generalizations are invalid. Ethnographies are a temporal artefact.
The ethnographer is a participant through time, and writes from
constantly shifting positions (Pratt 1986, p. 39). This moving position is constantly being reflected upon and
talked and written about by the researcher.
As ethnography is essentially a narrative this imposes a temporal aspect
on the text (Clifford 1986(b), p. 100).
Cultures are not stationary to be captured in a moment of time for
analysis, and any attempt at this is a simplification and exclusionary. Rather culture is intrinsically temporal,
and all relationships are shifting over and through time in an organic way. There is no one moment of absolute representation
(Clifford 1986(a), pp. 10-15). Any
ethnography can be nothing more than an historical inscription of relationships
over time.
Secondly,
as the researcher moves through the research site, an internal view is
formed. However, the site itself is
constantly morphing with competing interests and representations. Wilson (1983, p. 13) suggests that because of this it is
difficult to then get a picture of the complete distribution of attitudes in a
large organization. Any attempt to do
this, or obtain new information, is necessarily done in a calculated fashion.
Despite these temporal and context specific
limitations of ethnography Wilson (1983, pp. 2-3) suggests that ethnographic
techniques can gather data about human behaviour that cannot be obtained using
quantitative methodologies. He suggests
that such a naturalistic perspective can capture human behaviour, which is
significantly influenced by its context.
Context includes both physical setting, as well as internalized notions
such as traditions, roles, values and norms.
An imposed context such as a questionnaire or controlled experiment used
by mainstream accounting research imposes is own unique setting, rather than
respecting and immersing itself in the context of the subject, and does not
allow questions to emerge from the field.
Rist (1983, p. 177) proposes
that ethnography has emerged as a legitimate research response to increased
concerns of accountability. It is a
research methodology which can tell “what is really going on out there’ (1983,
p. 177).
Ethnographers are unavoidably subjective in that though
they travel through an organization or place over a period of time, they
culturally begin located in the one place whence they came. They interpret in the context of their previous
experiences (Rosaldo 1986, p. 96). They
also interpret in the scheme of their theoretical framework. This makes an ethnographer's
interpretation one truth of a potential many, and each truth is just as valid
as the next. No one truth is exhaustive
and definitive, but an attempt at persuasion (Rosaldo 1986, p. 80).
Wolcott (1975, p. 28) argues
that doing ethnography is a human task with human limitations. These limitations arise largely from
interactions with individuals and the skills of the researcher. Wilson (1983, pp. 4-6) identifies that there
must be an inherent suspicion of the intent of the research by the subjects in
a research site. Subjects may feel an
obligation to provide behaviour that is appropriate or expected. The success of the research is dependent
upon a special inter-personal relationship with the researcher. There may be present as an undercurrent a
desire to be evaluated positively.
A fourth limitation of
ethnographic methodology is concerned with the verification and ownership of
data. This arises because mainstream
concepts of verification of data are not valid in this methodology due to the
problematic claim to ownership of the data.
The ethnographic narrative
is recorded and constructed by the researcher.
It is a telling of a story by a participant observer in a culture
(Llewellyn 1999). A participant observer has no claim to any universal accuracy
or truth, as understanding is always relative to one's position in the social
scheme (Van Maanen 1982, p146). This is
problematic for notions of verification of data, and truth in data. Ball acknowledges this when he states:
I can see only dangers and
shortcomings in any attempt to implant a scientifically derived notion of
'verification' into the methodological procedures of participant observation
research. Not only is such an attempt
based upon a misunderstanding of the fundamental differences between the
interpretive methods of participant observation and the statistical methods of
positivism, but is also trades upon an inflated reputation for the approach it
advocates.
(Ball
1982, p137).
Mainstream methods of
verification fall down for ethnographic data because the data collected is of a
fundamentally different nature, and it is in this difference that exists the
value and contribution of this method to research in accounting. James (1896, pp. 121-122) as cited by Ball
(1982, p. 137) described two different kinds of knowledge, "acquaintance
with" and "knowledge of".
The latter "knowledge of" is a formal, rational and systematic
generation of knowledge, based upon observation that has been checked and
verified in exactness and precision.
This is in contrast to the former mentioned "acquaintance
with" knowledge, which is obtained through personal and first-hand
encounters with the world. It is
knowledge from doing and use, rather than formal and systematic observation.
Ball (1982, p. 138) argues
that the distinction of these two forms of knowledge is important because the
two forms of knowledge have different functions, and they are not that same
knowledge with different levels of accuracy and validity. They do not exist on a continuum of reliable/objective/valid,
and the criteria of one paradigm should not be applied to another
paradigm.
This is not to argue that
there are not appropriate verification techniques available to the participant
observer in the interpretive paradigm.
Ball (1982, p. 139) suggests that in the realm of the interpretive,
verification is intrinsic to the process of research itself. That is,
verification cannot be separated from the collection and analysis of data
itself, because the participant observer is immediately sharing the context of
the social setting, simultaneously constructing the account of the cultural
setting. In this way the participant
observer is entitled to participant validation, or respondent validation. Ball (1982, p. 139) argues that the
observer's account is data in its own right, and has the validity of an
original source.
It is invalid to seek the
verification of replication in ethnographic method, because to do so does not
acknowledge diversities of contexts and interpretations. There is no one
interpretation attributable to all subjects of a study. This is because all members of a culture
being studied have different status and roles.
They have different histories and biographical experiences and may have
different values and ideological commitments.
The morphing context influences interpretations that are emergent and
processual. The culture studied is necessarily situational and temporal. It is not the task of the participant
observer to filter observations to one consensual interpretation as is implied
in any form of verification. Rather, it
is necessary that the researcher's observations and understandings be contested
(Ball 1982, p. 140).
It is in this uniqueness of
experience that the ethnographic text gains authority. The text is a personal narrative in a
discursive space (Pratt 1986, pp. 30-33).
Clifford (1986, p. 121) argues that ethnographers systematically
construct stories they believe to be true of themselves and others. Necessarily
the construction is not premeditated, but contingent and fleeting. It is an ethical imperative that an
ethnography make no attempt to present differing voices as if a jigsaw to bring
together in one coherent and recognisable picture. It must tolerate pluralism and ambiguity. There is danger where "narrative
realism merges innocently with realist goals and thence with positivist
description of factual reality" (Webster 1983, p. 198). Rather, a pluralistic tolerance must be
sought in any writing of interpretations.
This leads us to the second
limitation of ethnographic data, the ownership of it. Tyler (1986, p. 8) points out that ethnographic knowledge is an
emergent, reflexive creation of the author-text-reader. It does not belong alone to the researcher
or to the culture studied or to the reader.
It does not describe a knowledge and it does not produce an
outcome. Rather it is a dialectic that
privileges neither the author, nor the text nor reader. In this way ethnographic data is
inter-subjective knowledge, and is not the focus of one individual to own or
claim (Tyler 1986, p. 122).
Underpinning this idea of multiple truths and multiple voices and
multiple knowledges in a culture(s) is a rejection of the idea that reference
is an "univocal relation between forms of representation (words, images,
etc.) of an objective, external world" (Hassard 1993, p. 2). The
ethnographer must acknowledge privileging one interpretation because
interpretive ethnography's interest in multiple voices is an epistemological
stance embracing an ethical disposition (Linstead 1993, p. 53).
Geertz (1988, p. 140) and
Linstead (1993, p. 54) argue that all voices do not have an equal hearing. It is suggested voices native to the field
cannot speak but through the ethnographer.
Consequently, try as the ethnographer might, he or she cannot avoid
imposing themselves on these voices with their methods, language and
selections. Ethnographers inevitably
intervene and speak over the top of voices in the field. In this way ethnographies are fictitious in
the sense that they are exclusionary.
Through omission or expression there are always voices silenced to some
degree. However, there are others that
are given voice otherwise not institutionally heard. The ethnographer must be aware of the partiality of
interpretations and representations, and that the very act of writing an
ethnographic text invokes a power relationship. In this way an ethnographic text is reciprocating, and its
meanings are multi-subjective and power-laden. This in itself overcomes any
limitations of the data and makes the ethnographic methodology most desirable,
because the text in form as well as content questions monophonic authority
(Clifford et al. 1986, p. 7-9).
Ethnographic methodology
offers the study of accounting in action three advantages. First it situates the researcher in the
context of the site, giving them sensitivity to the unique cultural
understandings of that site. In doing
this it permits an ethical stance for the researcher as it acknowledges
ideological structures and value systems of both the researcher and the
subjects that are in operation at the micro level organizational context. This challenges the myth of objectivity. Secondly ethnographic methodology
accommodates sensitivity to gender and marginalized groups. Thirdly, a strong advantage of the approach
is that it allows discernment derived from the freedom in use and examination
of language, text and symbol.
Accounting literature calls
for accounting researchers to pay attention to underlying ideological
structures and value judgments, so as not to separate them from the
responsibility of their work (Tinker et al. 1982, p. 167). Smith et al. (1988,
p. 95) expressed concern that case studies should not be undertaken in an
apolitical manner as suggested by Kaplan (1984, pp. 390-391), but rather in a
way that acknowledges wider and contradictory social and economic aspects of
accounting for control. Heeding this
call, accounting literature case studies pertaining to accounting in action and
organizational culture and which acknowledge their ideological underpinnings
are not uncommon (Davies 1990, Preston et al. 1992, Covaleski et al. 1988, Chua
1995, Hopper and Macintosh 1993, Kaidonis and Nancarrow 1996[b], Laughlin and
Broadbent 1997). This
is in answer to a call by Morgan.
Accountants often see
themselves as engaged in an objective, value-free, technical enterprise,
representing reality "as is".
But in fact, they are subjective "constructors of reality":
presenting and representing the situations in limited and one-sided ways. They are not just technicians practising a
technical craft. They are part of a
much broader process of reality constructions, producing partial and rather
one-sided views of reality, exactly as an artist is obliged to produce a
partial view of the reality he or she wishes to represent.
By appreciating and
exploring this dimension of the accounting process, accountants have a means of
developing a new epistemology of accounting that will emphasise the
interpretive as opposed to the supposedly "objective" aspects of the
discipline, perhaps in a way that will help broaden and deepen the accountants'
contributions to economic and social life".
(Morgan, G. 1988, p. 477)
Ethnographic methodology
offers accounting a deeper understanding of the social interactions of
accounting, acknowledging the fallibility of the notion of objective
understandings of accounting taken outside their situational context. Wilson (1983, pp. 5-6) proposes interpretive
research as an alternative view to objectivity, suggesting that behaviour
cannot be understood unless the framework that subjects use to interpret
thoughts, feeling, and actions is also understood. This implies an "objective outsider" is inadequate for
gathering data, because this framework must be experienced. Any attempts at objectifying information are
arbitrary and privilege a selected meaning system.
Denzin
(1971, p. 58) supports this position, suggesting that all sociological work
reflects the unique stance of the investigator, and that the researcher
attempts to answer in the public arena what are essentially personal and
private questions. The research interest
precedes the research activity and is derived from the personal preferences and
choices of the researcher. In this way
Denzin suggests that a researcher is both the object and the subject in a
study. Van Maanen (1982, pp. 107-108)
concurs, suggesting that it should be acknowledged that legitimate personal
matters lead an ethnographer into the field, and the research endeavour
ultimately always comes down to a person.
Critical ethnographic methodology is ethically responsible in that it
formally acknowledges the personal moral lens that the researcher introduces by
his or her presence.
In
addition, challenges are made to researchers to advance accounting research into an area that
has traditionally been of interest only to women, or the other, or negative
space in accounting studies (Oakes and Hammond 1995, p. 63, and Hines 1992).
These voices can be institutionally silenced. Ethnographic narratives and their
interpretive nature give a mechanism for these quieter voices to be heard. Use of reflexivity and narrative methods
intrinsic to ethnography address these concerns by allowing the researcher to
expose their partiality, gender bias, and ideological bents in the writing of
the work.
Ethnographic research has the advantage of the richness,
texture and complexity of data in its examination of language, text and
symbol. As ethnography is not
description, but construction, the tools used will influence the final
construct. Ethnographies are in one
sense bound, and in another sense freed by their literary structures and
qualities. Traditional western
mainstream thought polarised written language into extremes: fiction versus
fact, rhetoric verses plain signification and subjectivity versus
objectivity. Ethnography as a
methodology has the ability to acknowledge that these are a construct of
viewpoint and belief, and therefore context dependent. It explores the protean and pluralistic
texts and knowledge constructions potentially present in a site.
Such a sensitivity to
language is important to accounting research.
Francis argues that rather than being neutral, accounting is a moral and
discursive practice. Accounting is
moral because it has "the capacity to change things in the world…it has
consequences that call for moral discernment in the part of its
practitioner" (1990, p. 5).
Francis also describes accounting as a discourse. He states "Explicit recognition of
accounting's status as a discursive practice…is profoundly important because it
forces accountants to acknowledge their own personal involvement, their own
moral agency and rhetorical role, in the production and creation of accounting
reports" (1990, p. 5). A methodology
that is sensitive to the use of language is able to highlight symbolic
structures and underlying assumptions (Chua 1986(a), p. 615).
In embracing an ethnographic methodology, a commitment is
made to seeking methods of inquiry in the field that will expose partial,
pluralistic and context sensitive data.
Two methods are identified as achieving this: the use of reflexivity by
the researcher, and data collections and analysis using competing codes and
representations of source materials.
Reflexivity
requires the researcher to undertake personal reflections and construct texts
of them. An ethnographer who uses reflexivity writes personal accounts of the
research process that are necessarily autobiographical in form. Reflexivity requires the researcher to
reflect upon their presence and impact on the research site and processes. Reflexivity organically binds ethnographic
authority, personal experience and originality of expression (Pratt 1986, pp.
29-30). Woolgar describes reflexivity
as “the willingness to probe beyond the level of straightforward
interpretation" (1988, p. 16). It
is a way for the researcher to expose underlying assumptions. It also allows a researcher to declare
beliefs and interests and practices, thus providing a form of investigative
transparency and honesty. Reflexivity
is intrinsic to ethnographic method, as it acknowledges the constitutive role
of the researcher, as well as inherent values of the researcher. Knights (1992, p515) as cited by Chia
states:
[i]nsofar as they fail to
acknowledge their own participation in the constitution of social reality,
qualitative researchers, who claim a distance from positivist beliefs, also
have a tendency to be unreflexive about the representations they produce. Whether quantitative or qualitative methods
are used, representational approaches to knowledge rest on a privileging of the
consciousness of the researcher who is deemed capable of discovering the
'truth' about the world or management and organization through a series of
representations.
(Chia
1996, p. 44)
When
writing a description and experiences of a research site, the ethnographer
helps create the organisation and systems with which he or she is
involved. The researcher's findings are
personal linguistic constructions (Chia 1996, p. 45). Research becomes their narrative. Harding (1987, pp. 6-7) suggests that both
what is asked and at the same time what is not asked and who is doing the asking is significant to the outcomes of the
research. Reflexivity acknowledges the
imperfections of the process and that there is no uniform experience or
understanding. When a researcher asks a question, embedded in that question is
a personal understanding of the context of the research. Such an understanding is woven from the
individual, their experience, class, race, gender, beliefs etc. Harding (1987, p. 8) suggests that this
interest must be declared as it moulds the findings of the research. In this way research cannot help but be from
the subjective, and this is encapsulated in reflexivity.
Denzin
(1971, p. 58) suggests that the ethnographer must reflect on the conduct of
self and others in interactive situations, and that these reflections become
central pieces of data.
Autobiographical reflexivity is a way in which data and explanatory schemes
are made visible to expose the replication or generation of interpretive
schemes. Such reflexive accounts should
include the political and theoretical stances of the researcher, exposing the
conceptions and limitations of the research (Ball, 1982, pp. 145-147).
In
this way the authority of the text is constituted by intense personal narrative
and should not be devalued as anecdotal.
Every version of an ethnographic other is also a construction of a self
(Clifford 1986, p. 23). Undertaking
ethnographic research requires the researcher to speak and write, and speaking
and writing themselves are interpretations, and thus are reflexive and
autobiographical (Crapanzano 1986, p. 52).
These attributes of ethnography mean that they are also morally charged (Clifford
1986, p. 100).
Crapanzano (1986, pp. 52-53) suggests that the ethnographer, like
Hermes is a cunning trickster. The
story must be convincing and while it does not lie, it does not promise to tell
the whole truth. He suggests that in
clarifying the foreign and making an organization familiar to a reader, the
ethnographer can only present an understanding constructed from their cultural
premise. Reflexivity is a means of
admitting this trickery.
This raises the question is
there a meaning beyond the individual perspective? Can individual reflexivity expose and explain communal meanings
and systems of interpretation? The
answer is yes, through what Bruner describes as a "folk psychology"
(1990, p. 33). A culture provides the
processes and transactions involved in constructing wider meanings. There are cultural systems of interpretation
to construct public or communal meanings.
For example, Bruner (1993, p. 33) suggests that an autobiography is
understandable to both the individual and to others because of cultural systems
of interpretation. This is so even
though an autobiography itself is unable to be understood by individuals
identically. Thus, while reflexivity is
personal, it is not confined to the personal.
Interpretations are made through structures that hold at a particular
time and place (Usher 1993, p. 104).
Reflexivity highlights structures and interpretations at a specific time
in a specific society and culture. The
individual reflexivity of the researcher of an accounting ethnography is
located in a structure and discipline in which the organization and accounting
system operates. In this way research
findings can reflect the issues of the researcher's context, as seen through
the personal, and yet beyond it. In
this way reflexivity exposes and explains communal meanings and systems of
interpretation.
Reflexivity has the capacity
to raise awareness of silence and absence in a research site because as a
method of inquiry it has a "social subjective" (Usher 1993, p.
105). The reflexive researcher, in the
questions asked and conclusions made, also signifies a gender, sexuality,
ethnicity, class etc (Usher 1993, p. 105).
Through this signification, it can also highlight what is not present.
Thus epistemic reflexivity
in making us aware of the necessary place of research communities also makes us
aware of their power of exclusion and closure and provides us with the means to
interrogate and problematise our emersion as researchers within them.
(Usher
1993, p104)
Reflexivity also offers a researcher the advantage of
highlighting process giving primacy to the micro-situational context. Chia (1996, p. 46) describes this as
"becoming realism".
"Becoming realism" gives ultimate priority to process. Reality is continually being re-understood,
reinterpreted. Relationships take focus
over objects and structures. This gives
primacy to the local situation, its relationships and the order of the accounting
processes. Reflexivity allows us to
realize that accounting is both a medium and an outcome.
This section will review three aspects of data collection
and analysis for ethnographic research.
First the implications pertaining to data collection of the ontological
and epistemological assumptions of the methodology are considered, including
the process of identifying the research questions(s), and (un)planning data
collections. The second aspect of data
collection and analysis discussed is the logistics of data collection,
including gaining entry and establishment in the site, gaining the trust of
subjects, and ethical dilemmas that arise around the collection and use of
data. Thirdly skills required by the
ethnographer for successful data collection are reviewed.
Any research method employed
to collect data contains underlying ontological and epistemological
assumptions. Facts or data are
"theory laden" because they are part of a symbolic scheme (Gaffikin
1988, p. 16). Meaning given to them
depends upon what understanding is brought to them. Meaning depends upon the symbolic scheme applied (Bredo and Feinberg 1982, p. 115). This has distinct implications as described
by Blum.
(t)he grounds of competent
use of method within the interpretive 'community' are distinct form those
operant in the positivist 'community'.
Each community provides its own socially organized devices which may be
appealed to for assent to and warrant of the 'truthfulness' of research
knowledge. The conventional wisdom of
the community also provides the language and theoretical presuppositions which
allow for the identification of that which is to count as data. This data, this research knowledge, cannot
be divorced form "the observer's procedures for finding and producing them"
(Blum
1970, p. 333)
Knowledge comes from experience
as an active participant in the social world (Dillard 1991, p. 11). Hassard
argues "postmodern epistemology suggests that the world is constituted by
our shared language and that we can only "know the world" through the
particular forms of discourse our language creates" (1993, p. 3). Knowledge/meaning is not constant, but is
continually redefined because it emerges from a reality of constantly shifting
contexts (Chua 1986(a), p. 617).
Consequently these meanings/knowledge attributed to any data cannot be
rational, but rather embrace symbols and intentions.
This has implications for any view of data in an
interpretive scheme. There can be no
data in the traditional sense in an ethnography. "Data" is shallow and does not evoke emotion. An experience lived is not emotionless. The interpretation of a researcher in an
ethnography does not box aspects of an organisation in such a way, or
artificially and intentionally impose an ideological framework ex ante
or ex post the experience. Rather, an ethnographic
researcher becomes and lives the organisation in a real way. In this manner an
ethnography is more personal than traditional case studies that are predominate
in the accounting literature to date.
It is a celebration of uniqueness, subjectivity and culture.
Is there such a thing as a
research question in the given assumptions of an interpretive scheme? Wilson (1983, p. 7) argues that ethnography
allows concepts to emerge on their own.
This is also argued by Wolcott (1975, pp. 27-28) who says the site
defines the problem and that an ethnographic researcher is best served when
feeling free to "muddle about" in the field, and to discover the
problem(s). In this way he regards
ethnography as a high-risk and low-yield approach suited to generate hypotheses,
not to verify them. Becker (1958, p160)
argues that relevant problems are only discovered in the course of research.
In "doing an
ethnography" there is much latitude in collecting data as it cannot be
limited to pre-specified places and times (Wilson 1983, p. 12). Data is emergent from the site, and may not
be known at the commencement of research, with access to confidential data
often emerging with the growth of trust in the participant observer. Ball (1982, p. 148) suggests it is inappropriate
to employ standardized procedures in participant observation.
The form of data may take
many modes. Wilson (1983, p. 11)
suggests some of these to be verbal interactions between participants, verbal
interactions with the researcher, nonverbal behaviour, patterns of actions and
non-actions, archival records, artifacts and documents. Wolcott (1975, pp. 42-43) also argues for
this, suggesting critical ethnography is the use of varied modes of gathering
information. These varied modes of
gathering information yield a fruitful harvest. Wolcott (1975, pp48-49) suggests that a wealth of primary data is
necessary for a worthwhile ethnography, and this wealth is diverse and unique
to the site. He includes stories,
myths, songs, maps, photographs, sketches and pictures. Faulkner (1982, p. 66) argues that
impoverished data collection procedures can hinder creative research processes,
and it is important to be creative "as you go along" (1982, p. 66).
Wilson (1983, pp12-13)
suggests that observations are made and opinions formed through various lenses
including the answer to a given question, what is said to other people, what is
said in various situations, and what is said at various times, what is actually
done, as well as non-verbal signatures such as body language, and what those
who are significant say, do and feel.
Similarly Vidich (1960) as cited by Wolcott (1975, p. 38) proposes
ethnographers must go "native" in fieldwork as a necessity in getting
the information wanted. Ball (1982, p.
148) argues that you cannot divorce a researcher's account from involvement in
the field. Wolcott supports this,
stating that the level of personal involvement in ethnography far exceeds that
of other research approaches (Wolcott 1975, p. 37). Wilson (1983, p. 16) argues that any analysis of data necessarily
must seek to understand meanings of participants, being careful not to have
interpretations over-structured by theory.
The analysis of the data must be accepting of uniqueness.
Personal involvement in the
field by the researcher to gather data is not straight- forward. Common difficulties evolve around the
ethnographer gaining entry and establishment in the field, gaining the trust of
the subjects, and being willing to compromise on ethical dilemmas that inevitably
arise.
Wilson (1983, p. 10)
suggests that any ethnographer must be sensitive in entering and establishing a
role and deciding how they will become involved in the community. Van Maanen
(1982, p. 109) identifies two problems associated with the entry and
establishment of the researcher role in fieldwork. Firstly, entry must be obtained through approval from a third
party. This immediately presents the
dilemma of the researcher disassociating themselves from the interests and
controls of that third party. Secondly,
the researcher cannot buy their way in by offering anything of value to
participants, so there are no compelling reasons for subjects to participate or
cooperate. Because of these
constraints, it is necessary to make the research non-intrusive and sensible to
those being studied.
An ethnographer must gain
the trust of subjects so that participants are willing to freely share their
views (Bruyn 1966, Wilson 1983, pp. 11-13).
Ethnography is not a one-way process.
Van Maanen (1982, pp. 110-111) suggests subjects in a site are always
studying the fieldworker and modifying their behaviour accordingly to avoid
attracting attention and subsequent scrutiny.
To successfully observe a 'natural' situation, the ethnographer must
gain the trust of the subjects. Trust
cannot be gained uniformly in the organization, as there is neither uniform
tolerance nor equivalent subject knowledge of the ethnographer.
There are also
ethical problems surrounding the collection of data in a field study. Wolcott (1975, p. 39) acknowledges that
there is a problem of ownership of materials that have been gathered or
prepared in the field. Many are private
documents that belong to the researcher.
Becker (1958, p. 174)
questions what interpretations an ethnographer can ethically make public. Van Maanen (1982, p. 147) also takes up this
theme, suggesting that in any reporting of a study the ethnographer becomes an
informant, and even with discretion it is inevitable that trust must nearly
always be violated.
Ethical concerns also
present themselves upon leaving the field.
Van Maanen suggests
"Fieldwork inevitably entails attachment, and it therefore creates all the
existential dilemmas upon which any human relationship is based" (1982, p.
116).
An ethnographer uses particular skills in operating in the
field of a research site. An
interpretive ethnographer is required to give something of themselves. In any analysis of data, the researcher is
also a constructionist. Redfield (1953,
p. 156) as cited by Wolcott (1975, p. 38) argues the ethnographer should not
hide behind a mask of neutrality in giving accounts of their findings. Rather, they should include something of
themselves and how they feel personally towards events they are studying. Much of this is missing in
"accounting-in-action" research.
Wax (1971, p. 363) as cited by Wolcott (1975, p38) agrees arguing
fieldworkers themselves should report how they have been changed by the
experience.
Faulkner (1982, p66)
suggests that personal blocks an ethnographer may encounter in collecting data
include being custom-bound, over-certainty, reluctance to play outside their
discipline and an impoverished fantasy life, the desire for frustration
avoidance, fear of the unknown, a reluctance to exert influence in their site,
resource myopia, engaging only a partial contact with their environment, and a
fear of failure. He argues it is
necessary to be open and flexible so as not to become custom-bound and
over-certain in a chosen discipline (Faulkner 1982, p. 66).
Becker
(1958, p. 160) argues participant observation research is carried on
sequentially, however the tasks of analysis and data-gathering can be
simultaneous. Data gathering is sequential because it has a chronology. Data analysis and data-gathering are
simultaneous because the researcher is constantly interpreting and
reinterpreting with the morphing of context and meanings, and with varying
levels of trust and disclosure shown to the researcher. This makes it difficult to specify precise
procedures for the conduct of interpretive research. Techniques are those of
the anthropologist including observation, awareness of linguistic cues, and a
careful attention to detail.
This paper has described the
nature and genealogy of ethnographic research, identifying it as an
under-utilized paradigm that offers much to accounting research. It is a methodology that is able to satisfy
calls for context specific and ideologically aware research in accounting.
However, ethnography is far
from perfect and key limitations in its application were discussed, including
the limiting factors of language, the morphing effects of context, and
imperfections of the researcher, and ethical considerations surrounding the
verification and ownership of data.
Despite these limitations,
key strengths in this research methodology are determined to outweigh the
limitations identified. Ethnographic
methodology has the advantage of permitting the research process to acknowledge
ideological structures and values inherent in accounting systems, provides a
sensitivity to gender and marginalized others, and exploits the richness of the
use of language, text and symbol.
Methods relating to interpretive research were explored, as was
reflexivity.
Bibliography
Ashmore, M The reflexive thesis: writing sociology of scientific knowledge (Chicago, University of Chicago Press,1989).
Arrington, C. and Francis, F., “Giving Economic Accounts: Accounting as Cultural Practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 18, No. 2/3, 1993, pp. 107-124.
Atkinson, P., The Ethnographic Imagination: textual construction of reality, (London, Routledge, 1990).
Atkinson, P., Understanding Ethnographic Texts, (Newbury Park, Sage, 1992).
Ball, S., "The verification and application of participant observation case study", Case Study Methods, 1st Ed., Vol. 5, pp141-164, in ERM 881 Case Study Methods 5 Readings 27-33, Perspectives on case study 4: ethnography, Deakin University, 1982, pp. 135-158.
Becker, H., "Problems of inference and proof in participant observation", Amercian Sociological Review, Vol. 23, pp652-660, in ERM 881 Case Study Methods 5 Readings 27-33, Perspectives on case study 4: ethnography, Deakin University, 1958, pp. 159-176.
Blum, A., "Theorizing", in J. Douglas, (ed), Understanding Everyday Life, (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970).
Bredo, E. and Feinberg,W., Knowledge and Values in Social and Educational Research, (Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1982).
Brown, R., A poetic for sociology, (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1977).
Bruner, J., Acts of Meaning, (USA, Harvard University Press, 1990).
Bruyn, S., Human perspective in sociology, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1966).
Burchell S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J. and Nahapiet J., "The roles of accounting in organizations and society", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1980, pp. 5-30.
Capps, T., Hopper, T., Mouritsen, J., Cooper, D., and Lowe, T., "Accounting in the Production and Reproduction of Culture", in W. Chua, T. Lowe and T. Puxty, (eds), Critical Perspectives in Management Control, Macmillan, London, 1989, pp. 217-243.
Chia, R., "The problem of reflexivity in organizational research: towards a postmodern science of organisation", Organisation, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1996, pp. 31-59.
Chua, W. F., "Radical Developments in Accounting Thought", The Accounting Review, Vol. LXI, No. 4, 1986(a), pp. 601-632.
Chua, W.F., “Theoretical Constructions of and by the Real”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1986(b), pp. 583-598.
Chua, W.F., "Experts, networks and inscriptions in the fabrication of accounting images - a story of the representation of three public hospitals", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20, No.2/3, 1995, pp. 111-145.
Clifford, J., "Partial Truths" in J. Clifford. and G. Marcus, (eds),. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 1-25, (California, University of California Press, 1986(a)).
Clifford, J., "On Ethnographic Allegory" in Clifford, J. and G. Marcus, eds. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 98-121, (California, University of California Press, 1986(b)).
Coffey. A., Holbrook, B., and Atkinson, P., “Qualitative Data Analysis: Technologies and Representations”, Sociological Research Online, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1996, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/4.html
Covaleski, M. and Dirsmith, M.,
"The use of budgetary symbols in the political arena: an historically
informed field study", Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol.13, No.1, 1988, pp. 1-24.
Crapanzano, V., Tuhami: portrait of a Moroccan, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980).
Crapanzano, V., "Hermes' Dilemma: The Masking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description", in J. Clifford, and G. Marcus, (eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 51-76, (California, University of California Press, 1986).
Czarniawska-Joerges, B., “Narration or Science? Collapsing the Division in Organization Studies”, Organization Vol. 2(1), 1995, pp. 11-33.
Davies, L., "Organizational culture and information systems strategy: a case study of the British Army", Paper presented at the University of New South Wales Management Accounting Research Conference, September 27,28, 1990.
Denzin, N., "The Logic of Naturalistic Inquiry", Social Forces, Vol. 50, pp. 166-182, in ERM 881 Case Study Methods 5 Readings 27-33, Perspectives on case study 4: ethnography, Deakin University, 1971, pp. 57-76.
Dillard, J., "Accounting as a critical social science", Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1991, pp. 8-28.
Dorst, J., The written suburb: and ethnographic dilemma, (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989).
Dwyer K., Moroccan Dialogues, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982).
Edmondson, R., Rhetoric in Sociology, (London, Macmillan, 1984).
Faulkner, R., "Improvising on a Triad", in J. Van Maanen, J. M. Dabbs Jr., and R. Faulkner, (eds), Varieties of Qualitative Research, pp. 65-102, (USA, Sage Publications, 1982).
Flamholtz, E., "Accounting, budgeting and control systems in their organizational context: theoretical and empirical perspectives", Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 8, No. 2/3, 1983, pp. 153-169.
Francis, J., "After Virtue? Accounting as a Moral and Discursive Practice", Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol.3, No. 3, 1990, pp. 5-17.
Gaffikin, M., "Legacy of the Golden Age: Recent Developments in the Methodology of Accounting", ABACUS, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1988, pp. 16-36.
Geertz, C., Works and Lives: The Anthropologists as Author, (California, Stanford University Press, 1988).
Hammersley, M., "Ethnographic Writing", Social Research Update, Issue 5, 1993(a), Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guilford, England.
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/sru5.html, accessed 2 January 1999 3.40pm.
Hammersley, M., "The rhetorical turn in ethnography", Social Science Information, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1993(b), pp. 23-37.
Harding, S. (1987): Feminism and Methodology, (Indiana, University Press, 1987).
Hassard, J., "Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: an Overview", in J. Hassard, and M. Parker (eds), Postmodernism and Organizations, 1993, pp. 1-23.
Hines, R., "Accounting: filling the negative space", Accounting, Organizations and Society, No. 3/4, 1992, pp. 3-34.
Hines, R., “Financial Accounting: In Communicating Reality, We Construct Reality”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1988, pp. 251-261.
Hopper, T. and MacIntosh, N., "Management accounting as disciplinary practice: the case of ITT under Harold Geneen", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 4, 1993, pp. 181-216.
Hopwood, A., "The archaeology of accounting systems", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1987, pp. 207-234.
Kaidonis, M., and M. Nancarrow M., "Regulation and accountability in Australian housing policy: implications for homeless people", Paper presented at the Council for Homeless Persons Conference, 4-6 September 1996, Melbourne.
Kaplan, R., "The evolution of management accounting", The Accounting Review, Vol. 59, No. 3, 1984, pp. 390-418.
Krieger, S., The Mirror Dance: identity in a women's community, (Philadelphia USA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983).
Laughlin, R., "Accounting systems in organisational contexts: a case for critical theory", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12, No. 5, 1987, pp. 479-502.
Laughlin, R. and Broadbent, J., "The new public management reforms in schools and GP practices: a comparative study of professional resistance and the role of absorption and absorbing groups", Seminar Paper presented at the University of Wollongong Department of Accounting and Finance Seminar Series, 1997, Wollongong.
Lehman, C. and Tinker, T., “The ‘Real’ Cultural Significance of Accounts”, Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 12, No. 5, 1987, pp. 503-522.
Linstead, S. (1993): "Deconstruction in the Study of Organizations", in J. Hassard, and M. Parker (eds), Postmodernism and Organizations, pp. 50-70, (USA, Sage Publications, 1993).
Llewellyn, S., “Narratives in accounting and management research”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1999, pp. 220-236.
Marcus, G. and Cushman, D., "Ethnography as text", Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 11, 1982, pp. 25-69.
Marcus, G., "Contemporary problems of ethnography in the modern world system" in J. Clifford, and G. Marcus, (eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 165-193, (California, University of California Press, 1986).
Morgan, G., "Accounting as reality construction: towards a new epistemology for accounting practice", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13, No. 5, 1988, pp. 477-475.
Mulkay, M., The world and the word, (London, Allen and Unwin, 1985).
Napier, C., “The Past, Present and Future of Accounting History”, 10th Annual Doctoral Consortium, Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, July, 1988.
Oakes, L., and Hammond, T., "Biting the epistemological hand: feminist perspectives on science and their implications for accounting research", Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 6, 1995, pp. 49-75.
Parker, L., and Roffey, B., “Back to the drawing board: revisiting grounded theory and the everyday accountant’s and manager’s reality”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1997, pp. 212-247.
Pratt, M., "Fieldwork in common places" in J. Clifford, and G. Marcus, (eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 27-50, (California, University of California Press, 1986).
Preston A., Cooper, D., and Coombs, R., "Fabricating Budgets: A Study of the Production of Management Budgeting in the National Health Service", Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 17, No. 6, 1992, pp. 561-593.
Rist, R., "Blitzkrieg ethnography: on the transformation of a method into a movement", Educational Researcher, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 8-10, in ERM 881 Case Study Methods 5 Readings 27-33, Perspectives on case study 4: ethnography, Deakin University, 1980.
Rosaldo, R., "From the door of his tent: the fieldworker and the inquisitor" in J/ Clifford, and G. Marcus, (eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 77-97, (California, University of California Press, 1986).
Rose, D., Patterns of American culture: ethnography and estrangement, (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989).
Sanjek, P., Fieldnotes: the making of anthropology, (Ithaca New York USA, Cornell University Press, 1990).
Shostak, M.,: Nisa: the life and works of an !kung woman, (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1981).
Smith, C., Whipp, R., and Willmott, H., "Case study research in accounting and methodological breakthrough or ideological weapon?", Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol.2, 1988, pp. 95-120.
Smith, L. (1978): "An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnography and other case studies", Review of Research in Education, Vol. 6, 1978, pp. 316-376.
Tinker, T., Merino, B., and Neimark, M., "The normative origins of positive theories: ideology and accounting thought", Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1982, pp. 167-200.
Tinker, T., “Hamlet without the prince: the ethnographic turn in information systems research”, Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, 1998, pp. 13-33.
Tyler, S., "Ethnography, intertextuality and the end of description", American Journal of Semiotics, Vol. 3, No 4, 1985, pp. 83-98.
Tyler, S., "Post-modern ethnography: from document of the occult to occult document" in J. Clifford, and G. Marcus, (eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 122-140, (California, University of California Press, 1986).
Usher, R., "From process to practice: research, reflexivity and writing in adult education", Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1993, pp. 98-116.
Van Maanen, J., "Fieldwork on the Beat. This being an account of the manners and customs of an ethnographer in an American police department", in J. Van Maanen, J. M. Dabbs Jr., and R. Faulkner, Varieties of Qualitative Research, pp. 103-151, (USA, Sage Publications, 1982).
Van Maanen, J., Tales of the Field, (Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1988).
Wilson, S., "The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research", in ERM 881 Case Study Methods 5 Readings 27-33, Perspectives on case study 4: ethnography, Deakin University, 1983, pp. 23-56.
Wolcott, H., "Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools", Human Organization, Vol. 34, No2, 1975, pp. 111-127.
Wolcott, H., Writing up qualitative research, (Newbury Park, Sage, 1990).
Woolgar, S., Knowledge and reflexivity: new frontiers in the sociology of knowledge, (Great Britain, Sage Publications Ltd, 1988).
Webster, S., "Ethnography as Storytelling", Dialectical Anthropology, Vol. 8, 1983, pp. 185-205.
WWWebster Dictionary (1999): http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/mweb.html Merriam-Webster Incorporated. Accessed 1 November 1999.