A response to “theoretical triangulation and pluralism in accounting research: a critical realist critique”

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to respond to Modell’s paper entitled “Theoretical triangulation and pluralism in accounting research: a critical realist critique” (AAAJ this issue), which offers a two-part exposition of topics and issues pertaining to the recent paper “Theoretical triangulation and pluralism in research methods in organizational and accounting research” (Hoque et al., 2013).

Design/methodology/approach

Critical analysis of Modell’s observations pertaining to the paper drawing on the classical work of Burrell and Morgan (1979).

Findings

The authors reemphasize the need for an interaction between adopting an ontological stance and then conducting empirical research where the authors stated that the intention was not to argue any idea that theoretical triangulation approach should become the dominant approach and “take over” single theory approach. Instead, the authors demonstrate the ways theoretical triangulation can advance the understanding of multifaceted organizational realities.

Originality/value

The authors make a contribution to the generation of knowledge in research by addressing the tradeoffs involved such as possible theoretical incoherence and lack of focus when integrating theories with different ontological and epistemological assumptions.

Citation

Hoque, Z., Covaleski, M.A. and Gooneratne, T.N. (2015), "A response to “theoretical triangulation and pluralism in accounting research: a critical realist critique”", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1151-1159. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2015-2058