PAPER PROPHETS AND THE CONTINUING CASE FOR THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT ACCOUNTING RESEARCH |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China;2. Key Laboratory of Biometallurgy of Ministry of Education of China, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China;3. Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;1. School of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China;2. School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UK;1. University of Western Australia, Australia;2. Burgundy School of Business, France;3. University of Waikato, New Zealand;1. Universidade Paulista- UNIP, Rua Bacelar, 1212, Indianópolis, São Paulo, Cep04026-001, Brazil;2. Montpellier Business School, 2300, Avenue des Moulins, 34185, Montpellier, Cedex 4, France;1. Department of Accounting, United Arab Emirates University, P.O. Box 15551, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates;2. Discipline of Accounting, University of Sydney Business School, Darlington, New South Wales, 2006, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | This review of Tony Tinker’s Autocritique presented at the First International Accounting Seminar, Department of Finance and Accounting, Glasgow Caledonian University, is not a critique of what Tinker thinks of his own book. He should know best about what he wrote or wanted to write. It also does not assess the validity of his interpretation of the works of Marx or Hegel. What it does is to reflect further on an important issue underlying much of Tinker’s presentation—namely, the concern with research methodology. The review welcomes Tinker’s desires for change in approaches to accounting case studies but suggests that the underlying problems are more complex than Tinker suggests and demands a broader scale of response than that highlighted in his presentation. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
