The Kabuki of Accounting Philosophy.

Accounting research that is focused on understanding accounting in its organisational context, is increasingly recognising the “subjectivist” as a realm of interest distinct from the “objective” realm that previously had been its predominant concern. Accounting research has always been approached from the traditional positivist research methodology which yields results that may not give a full account of what determines and influences its organisational context. This mainstream approach gives the perception that the actors within an accounting discourse are objective and rational by nature during the course of their interactions. In addition, the researcher is also perceived to be unbiased and impartial. Such assumptions are not suitable for social science research, because they tend to oversimplify the way that people and organizations behave. Interpretive and critical paradigms are the traditional alternatives to positivist research. Interpretive researchers seek to reach an understanding of the phenomena being observed. While, critical researchers, in addition to seeking an understanding, may also critique such phenomena in respect to the morality and fair treatment of the parties involved who may have an unequal distribution of power. These alternatives have their limitations and may subject the researcher to being accused of being too subjective or too political. This paper argues that although it is a step forward for accounting research to recognise both the “subjective” and the “objective” as valid concerns, it is a mistake to pose a dichotomy between the two or to suggest that there are two different kinds of researchers (objectivist and subjectivist) who appropriately focus on one realm of experience or another. To achieve such an objective, this paper draws upon Morgan’s eight images of organizations to demonstrate that our knowledge of accounting and organisations is constructed through social practice in which objective-subjective distinctions are not meaningful.