320 ACCOUNTING FOR MANAGERS
the use of multiple conceptual views of ill structured, anomalous phenomena
on the presumption that reality is too ill structured to be meaningfully repre-
sented by any set of data or propositional network, no matter how comprehensive
they may appear.
The use of alternative research theories also has resulted in alternative research
methods of forms of inquiry. The general literature which describes the use
of qualitative, naturalistic methods in field research is growing in volume and
stature. From this literature, it is possible to outline various criteria of ‘‘good’’
research which are provisionally consistent with the knowledge claims advanced
by its theoretical perspective discussed in the paper (Morgan (1983) sounds a
useful warning note in such matters). However, we avoid detailed treatment
of such philosophical issues as epistemology, or such methodological issues as
falsification, or indeed of research methods. These and related matters have been
adequately dealt with in both the philosophy of science and accounting literatures.^7
Denzin and Lincoln (1983) offer a useful discussion regarding criteria to con-
sider for alternative methods of research inquiry. The first criteria is credibility
which relates to the believability of the observations and interpretations to both
the academic community and participants in the study. This criteria is addressed
through such techniques as prolonged engagement at the organizational con-
text studied which provides research scope,and persistent observations which
concerns penetration into the context studied to identify relationships, forces,
etc., which have salience in understanding the lived experiences of organizational
members. Representative adequacy also is important to credibility which entails
having sufficient notes, transcripts, audio or video recordings enable different
researchers to examine field observations and form similar though not necessarily
identical interpretations.
The second criteria is transferability, or the ability of the interpretations of one
organizational context to be transferred to another. Given the primary focus on the
context or substantive domain and the lived experience of its members, interpretive
and critical field members would typically emphasize the importance of providing
thick description in the research text, presenting vibrant, exact interview quotes,
archival abstracts, etc., that provide both scope and depth in understanding the
context. This thick description, in turn, influences theoretical perspectives being
provisionally used to interpret the organizational context. It is this informed
theory, not the observations, that may be transferred to begin providing another
organizational context.
The third and fourth criteria are dependability and conformability. The former
concerns developing reliable interpretations, but interpretations that simultane-
ously recast the state of its organization studied (i.e., its stability) and the process
by which the organization is changing (i.e., its instability); in turn the field worker
concedes instrumental unreliability, albeit a constructive unreliability. The latter
(^7) Notable in this regard was the paper by Tinkeret al.(1982). Others addressing the philosophical
underpinnings of different accounting research, include Christenson (1983), Chua (1986) and
Hopper and Powell (1985). For statements by philosophers on the philosophy of science, consult
Bernstein (1978), for those by organizational theorists see Burrell and Morgan (1979).