Epistemological Approaches and Pluralism in Accounting Research:

beyond the dominant paradigm

Abstract

The dominant scientific knowledge in accounting is reductionist and carries the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions of the paradigmatic approach in which it was developed, i.e., in the overwhelming majority it does not take into account the conceptual framework, values, beliefs, and subjective understanding moved by the players. Thus, the aim of this article is to provoke a reflection on the dominant theoretical paradigms in accounting research, evidencing the importance of alternative approaches. From the methodological point of view, the “state of the art” of accounting research will be surveyed, fitting this research into the type of theoretical essay or review of the main literature. Therefore, it was assumed as a starting point — how to enrich accounting information, through the contribution of interpretive and critical paradigms, given the recognized epistemological limitations of functionalist approaches. This article, starting from the typology developed by Burrel and Morgan (1979) — two dimensions, four paradigms —, revisits different epistemological possibilities and presents reflections on the contribution of these approaches to research, identifying assumptions, advantages and limitations of each paradigm. In this article, we conclude that it is a mistake to stigmatize the different theoretical paradigms to the extent that all are legitimate; only concrete research, carried out in their respective paradigms, can be considered appropriate or not. This epistemological reflection is relevant to the current debate to the extent that there are editorial policies that refuse the publication, regardless of its intrinsic value, when research does not fit the dominant paradigms (Baker and Bettner, 1997).