Developing Appreciation of Emancipatory Accounting through Empirical Research: Issues of Method

Main Article Content

Yara Consuelo Cintra orcid
Jim Haslam orcid
Fernanda Filgueiras Sauerbronn orcid


Objective: this essay aims to gain insights into the character of research designs and methods that best reflect the post-Marxist emancipatory accounting research promoted by Gallhofer, Haslam, and related writers. Thesis: emancipatory accounting research, as promoted by Gallhofer and Haslam, is non-dogmatic, subjectivist, and critical. It is consistent with a wide range of methods, although it is especially served by forms of qualitative research concerning key areas. It also values material from wide-ranging sources. Conclusions: the authors delineate appropriate research designs and methods in this area. We explore the theoretical appreciation of emancipatory accounting and reflect on debates over the philosophy of method in the literature to gain insights. The particularities and refinements involved in appreciating dimensions of emancipatory accounting are articulated: the multi-dimensional character of accountings’ functioning and dynamics; the complex and dynamic processes and phenomena that shape the significance of accountings; the envisioning of betterment; the particular praxis-orientation. At the same time, we point to similarities with other types of critical accounting research.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Cintra, Y. C., Haslam, J., & Sauerbronn, F. F. (2022). Developing Appreciation of Emancipatory Accounting through Empirical Research: Issues of Method. Journal of Contemporary Administration, 26(Sup. 1), e210009.
Theoretical Essays


Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136-158.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1992). On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 432-464.
Arrington, C. E. & Watkins, A. (2002). Maintaining ‘critical intent’ within a postmodern theoretical perspective on accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(2), 139-157.
Azevedo, S. U., Barbosa, J. S., Consoni, S., & Espejo, M. M. S. B. (2020). Ontological posture of research in management accounting. Brazilian Journal of Business, 2(3), 2927-2947.
Baker, C. R. (2000). Towards the increased use of action research in accounting information systems. Accounting Forum, 24(4), 366-378.
Bernstein, R. J. (1976). The restructuring of social and political theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. London: Verso.
Bohman, J. (1999). Theories, practices, and pluralism: A pragmatic interpretation of critical social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 29(4), 459-480.
Broadbent, J., Ciancanelli, P., Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (1997). Enabling accounting: The way forward?. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(3), 265-275.
Bronner, S. E. (1994). Of critical theory and its theorists. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 313-342.
Brown, J. (2017). Democratizing accounting: Reflections on the politics of ‘old’ and ‘new’ pluralisms. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 43, 20-46.
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013). Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the ‘death of environmentalism’ debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 1-18.
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2014). Integrated reporting: On the need for broadening out and opening up. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1120-1156.
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2015). Dialogic accountings for stakeholders: On opening up and closing down participatory governance. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 961-985.
Brown, J., Dillard, J., & Hopper, T. (2015). Accounting, accountants and accountability regimes in pluralistic societies: Taking multiple perspectives seriously. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(5), 626-650.
Brown, J., & Tregidga, H. (2017). Re-politicizing social and environmental accounting through Rancière: On the value of dissensus. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 61, 1-21.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life (1 ed.). London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Byrch, C., Milne, M., Morgan, R., Kearins, K. (2015). Seeds of hope? Exploring business actors’ diverse understandings of sustainable development. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 671-705.
Catchpowle, L., & Smyth, S. (2016). Accounting and social movements: An exploration of critical accounting praxis. Accounting Forum, 40(3), 220-234.
Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review, 61(4), 601-632. Retrieved from
Ciancanelli, P., Gallhofer, S., Humphrey, C., & Kirkham, L. (1990). Gender and accountancy: Some evidence from the UK. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1(2), 117-144.
Connolly, W. E. (1988). Political theory and modernity. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Cooper, C. (1995). Ideology, hegemony and accounting discourse: A case study of the national union of journalists. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6(3), 175-209.
Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191-207. Retrieved from
Dey, C. (2002). Methodological issues: The use of critical ethnography as an active research methodology. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(1), 106-121.
Dillard, J., & Roslender, R. (2011). Taking pluralism seriously: Embedded moralities in management accounting and control systems. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(2), 135-147.
Dillard, J., & Yuthas, K. (2013). Critical dialogics, agonistic pluralism, and accounting information systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14(2), 113-119.
Eaton, G., & Chomsky, N. (2020, Sept. 17). Noam Chomsky: The world is at the most dangerous moment in human history. New Statesman. Retrieved from
Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1999). Action research for the study of organizations. In S. R. Clegg, & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory & method (pp. 272-288). Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (1991). The aura of accounting in the context of a crisis: Germany and the first world war. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(5-6), 487-520.
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (1997). Beyond accounting: The possibilities of accounting and “critical” accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 8(1-2), 71-95.
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2003). Accounting and emancipation: Some critical interventions. London and New York: Routledge.
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2006). Mobilising accounting in the radical media during the first world war and its aftermath: The case of forward in the context of red clydeside. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(1-2), 224-252.
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2019). Some reflections on the construct of emancipatory accounting: Shifting meaning and the possibilities of a new pragmatism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 63, 101975.
Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., Monk, E. & Roberts, C. (2006). The emancipatory potential of online reporting: The case of counter accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(5), 681-718.
Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., & Roper, J. (2007). Reply to: ‘Analysing accounting discourse: Avoiding the “fallacy of internalism”. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6), 935-940.
Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., & Yonekura, A. (2013). Further critical reflections on a contribution to the methodological issues debate in accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3), 191-206.
Gallhofer, S., Haslam. J., & Yonekura, A. (2015). Accounting as differentiated universal for emancipatory praxis: Accounting delineation and mobilization for emancipation(s) recognizing democracy and difference. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(5), 846-874.
Grice, S., & Humphries, M. (1997). Critical management studies in postmodernity: Oxymorons in outer space? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(5), 412-425.
Held, D. (1980). An introduction to critical theory. London: Hutchinson.
Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2000). The global transformations reader: An introduction to the globalization debate. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hopper, T, & Powell, A. (1985). Making sense of research in the organizational and social aspects of management accounting: A review of its underlying assumptions. Journal of Management Studies, 22(5), 429-465.
Ibarra-Colado, E. (2006). Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: Thinking otherness from the margins. Organization, 13(4), 463–488.
Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(3), 131-156.
Laughlin, R. C. (1995). Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for “middle‐range” thinking. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(1), 63-87.
Laughlin, R. C., & Broadbent, J. (1993). Accounting and law: Partners in the juridification of the public sector in the UK? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 4(4), 337-368.
Laughlin, R. C., & Lowe, E. A. (1990). A critical analysis of accounting thought: Prognosis and prospects for understanding and changing accounting systems design. In D. J. Cooper, & T. M. Hopper (Eds.), Critical accounts (pp. 15-43). London: Palgrave.
Lehman, C., & Tinker, T. (1987). The ‘real’ cultural significance of accounts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(5), 503-522.
Lourenço, R. L., & Sauerbronn, F. F. (2016). Revistando possibilidades epistemológicas em contabilidade gerencial: Em busca de contribuições de abordagens interpretativas e críticas no Brasil. Revista Contemporânea de Contabilidade, 13(28), 99-122.
Lowe, A. (2004). Methodology choices and the construction of facts: Some implications from the sociology of scientific knowledge. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(2), 207-231.
Masquefa, B., Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2017). Developing appreciation of micro-organizational processes of accounting change and indicating pathways to more ‘enabling accounting’ in a micro-organizational domain of research and development. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 44, 59-82.
McClure, K. (1992). On the subject of rights: Pluralism, plurality and political identity. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), Dimensions of radical democracy (pp. 108-127). New York: Verso.
Mignolo, W. (2007). Delinking. Cultural Studies, 21(2-3), 449-514.
Modell, S. (2009). In defense of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20(3), 208-221.
Modell, S. (2010). Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: The role of mixed methods approach. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 124-129.
Oakes, H., & Berry, A. (2009). Accounting colonization: Three case studies in further education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 343-378.
Paes de Paula, A. P. (2016). Beyond paradigms in organization studies: The circle of epistemic matrices. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 14(1), 24-46.
Pereira, R. C. M., Constantino, F. F. S., Sauerbronn, F. F., Macedo, M. A. S. (2019). Pesquisa qualitativa em contabilidade: Um panorama de sua evolução no congresso ANPCONT à luz da literatura internacional. Revista Contemporânea de Contabilidade, 16(41), 204-224.
Power, M., & Laughlin, R. (1992). Critical theory and accounting. In. M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies (pp. 113-135). London: Sage.
Prokhovnik, R. (1999). Rational woman: A feminist critique of dichotomy. London: Routledge.
Roslender, R. (2013). Stuck in the middle with who? (Belatedly) engaging with Laughlin while becoming re-acquainted with Merton and middle-range theorizing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3), 228-241.
Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting’s emancipatory potential: A Gramscian critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(2), 205-227.
Tinker, T. (1984). Social accounting for corporations: Private enterprise versus the public interest. New York: Marcus Wiener Pub.
Tinker, T. (1985). Paper prophets: A social critique of accounting. London: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Tomkins, C., & Groves, R. (1983). “The everyday accountant and researching his reality”: Further thoughts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(4), 407-415.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Žižek, S. (2000). Class struggle or postmodernism? Yes, please! In J. Butler, E. Laclau, & S. Žižek (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left (pp. 90-135). London: Verso.