What is it about?
In this article, we analyzed the ways researchers have reported the use of validation and evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies when evaluating the quality of their own studies, and whether they are associated with certain paradigmatic affiliations presented in prior literature.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
This research was related to the critical debates of some social scientists who argued that interpretive research is in a "crisis of validity" as there is a lack of clarity or consensus about how it should be evaluated and about its paradigmatic consistency. At least in the field of management accounting, empirical evidence has, however, been limited.
Perspectives
The findings of this study provide partial support for the paradigmatic consistency in the reporting of evaluation criteria in relation to previous literature. These findings enhance our knowledge of alternative approaches and criteria to validation and evaluation in the qualitative studies of management accounting. The findings can aid both in the evaluation of empirical research and in the selection of appropriate evaluation approaches and criteria.
Professor Lili-Anne Kihn
Tampereen yliopisto
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Approaches to validation and evaluation in qualitative studies of management accounting, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, August 2015, Emerald,
DOI: 10.1108/qram-03-2013-0012.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
