Narrative Accounting Research

Meditari Accountancy Research
Narrating the narrative turn in narrative accounting research:: Scholarly

knowledge development or flat science?
Brian A. Rutherford,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Brian A. Rutherford, (2018) "Narrating the narrative turn in narrative accounting research:: Scholarly
knowledge development or flat science?", Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 26 Issue: 1, pp.13-43,
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-04-2017-0139
Downloaded by Universidad Nacional de Colombia At 21:11 26 June 2018 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-04-2017-0139
Downloaded on: 26 June 2018, At: 21:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 123 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 67 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Designing a conceptual methodology for structuration research", Meditari Accountancy
Research, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 70-87 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-07-2017-0182">https://
doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-07-2017-0182</a>
(2018),"The use of optimistic tone by narcissistic CEOs", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 531-562 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2015-2292">https://
doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2015-2292</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:506952 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2049-372X.htm
Narrative
Narrating the narrative turn in accounting
narrative accounting research: research
Scholarly knowledge development or

flat science? 13
Brian A. Rutherford
Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to analyse the nature and extent of convergence within the literature of the
narrative turn in narrative accounting research.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper offers an actor–network–theoretic perspective drawing on
Latour’s theory of citation and Shwed and Bearman’s development of that theory to analyse patterns of
convergence.
Findings – The paper finds that across the exemplars of narrative turn research examined, there is only a
limited level of epistemic engagement so that exemplars achieve their status without undergoing trials of
strength.
Research limitations/implications – The paper argues that the resources of the relevant academic
community are spread so thinly that each seam – each research question, methodology or method and
research context – is mined by no more than a small handful of researchers unable to generate a meaningful
volume of contestation. Steps are suggested to better focus research activity.
Originality/value – The use of Latour’s theory of citation to analyse patterns of convergence in
accounting research is innovative. The paper proposes a substantial change in the community’s approach to
narrative turn research on accounting narratives.
Keywords Actor-network theory, Accounting narratives, Epistemic convergence, Flat science,
Narrative turn
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Narrative statements within corporate annual reports are growing ever longer, more
complex and more significant as a source of information (see, for example, Deloitte, 2016;
Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2012; Financial Reporting Council, 2013;
International Integrated Reporting Council, 2013). An important branch of scholarly
research directed at accounting narratives takes them to be, not (or not just) lists of text-
based disclosures, but actual narratives – discourses setting out to construct a coherent and
meaningful account of events: in a word or a story (Beattie, 2014). The emergence and
development of this stream of work can, of course, itself be narrated as the historical
outcome of academic endeavour leading to our current state of scholarly knowledge. But it
can also be looked at in other ways.
One approach, influential within the sociology of science (Pinch and Bijker, 1984; Shapin,
1995), takes academic knowledge to be constructed as groups of working scholars labour to Meditari Accountancy Research
transform uncertainty, controversial propositions, challenges and trials of strength into Vol. 26 No. 1, 2018
pp. 13-43
converging positions accepted consensually within the academic community. This approach © Emerald Publishing Limited
2049-372X
emphasises the importance of studying the fabrication of knowledge in action – “following DOI 10.1108/MEDAR-04-2017-0139
MEDAR the actors” (Lowe, 2001, p. 329) – rather than after the event (Latour, 1987, pp. 1-17). Key
26,1 issues include the social dynamics by which claims come to be absorbed into the converging
pattern, or rejected, and the nature of the closure, if any, which thereby ensues. One feature
of the former is the micro-politics of contestation within the scholarly literature, an area
associated particularly with the work of Bruno Latour (1987), which includes a theory of
citation, reflecting the crucial role cross-referencing within the literature plays in building, or
14 undermining, convergence on mutually acknowledged positions. The functioning of citation
is a complex business; even apparently supportive references may have a negative impact if
they draw attention to the tentative nature of knowledge, for example by offering arguments
in favour of a position which, as it apparently needs further arguments, would seem yet be
accepted. Again, references which use incidental material from the cited paper to defend
work heading in a different direction add to the original paper’s citation count but deflect
attention from its developmental path.

Shwed and Bearman (2010) have combined Latour’s theory of citation with statistical
analysis of bibliometric data to investigate patterns of convergence in natural science. They
show that a substantial volume of citations can be consistent with several trajectories of
knowledge development, including a failure of significant epistemic engagement which they
call flat science.
This paper analyses the nature and extent of convergence within the literature of the
narrative turn in narrative accounting research, using Latour’s theory of citation and Shwed
and Bearman’s modelling of patterns of convergence (though not, for reasons explained
later, their statistical methods). The nature of at least some of the research paradigms and
methodologies employed in social science makes it inappropriate to seek consensus around a
single “correct answer” in at least some areas of the literature; nonetheless, the paper argues
that it is not inappropriate to examine the degree of convergence to be found in all branches
of the literature, and perhaps to expect at least some convergence. The paper concludes,
however, that the literature of the narrative turn in narrative accounting research generally
exhibits the character of flat science.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section begins by setting out Latour’s
theory of citation and Shwed and Bearman’s use of it to model patterns of convergence. It
then examines how the theory should be applied to social scientific investigation in the light
of the range of paradigms and methodologies employed therein. It also explains how
categories of research and exemplar studies within those categories have been identified for
the purpose of analysing the narrative turn literature. The following section contains the
central investigation of the paper, analysing the extent and nature of citations to the
identified exemplar studies. A further analysis is then undertaken of one particular type of
citation identified by Latour, the deformational citation, which, while it does not contest the
cited work, nonetheless yields negative modularity because it moves the developmental path
of the argument away from (or, at least, not towards) that of the cited work. The paper’s
findings are summarised in the following section, which argues that the limited nature of
epistemic engagement in the literature suggests a tendency to flat science and offers reasons
why that may be the case. The final section explores some implications of the findings for
future research within the field.
Fabricating scientific knowledge

Latour’s theory of citation
Latour’s (1987) Science in Action offers a powerful analysis of the social dynamics by which
scientific knowledge emerges in the academic literature. One key component of the work, his
theory of citation, was hailed by an advocate of its application in bibliometric studies as
“cognitively the most ambitious attempt in recent decades to create a new sociological Narrative
theory of citation” (Luukkonen, 1997, p. 34). At the heart of Latour’s approach is the insight accounting
that the fate of claims to scientific knowledge lies in the hands of those who subsequently
research
refer to them. Claims are contested in “trials of strength” but what is most significant is
whether subsequent references tend to move a claim nearer to the status of accepted
knowledge[1] (positive modality) or further away. Apparently supportive statements which
draw attention too forcefully to the tentative status of a claim, for example by mentioning it 15
cautiously (“it has been suggested”) or providing further evidence or argumentation for it,
actually tend towards the negative. The most positive statements presume the solidity of the
claim, for example by using it in a test of some other proposition or as a stage in a new
argument.
As any claim is tugged, first in one direction and then the other, by new contributions
from the community of researchers it undergoes translation as the knowledge-builders, and

those they enrol construe it in ways that best meet their own interests. These actors form the
networks that develop and sustain the solidity of claims. If statements of positive modality
swamp negativity, a degree of convergence, perhaps even consensus, emerges: among at
least a section of the scientific community, the claim becomes taken for granted as a matter
of course, tacit knowledge not explicitly defended or referenced, or, in Latour’s terminology,
black-boxed. Latour employs a number of graphic metaphors to describe the struggle
between positive and negative modalities, including movement up and down a ladder
(Latour, 1987, pp. 43-44) and hydrological work employing canalisation and dam-building to
convert a meandering, poorly defined river system, subject to flooding and changes of
course, into a well-defined waterway, still free-flowing but now with a single, inescapable
course (pp. 56-59). He urges us not to look back once black-boxing has been achieved but to
follow the contest as it occurs.
As:
[. . .] to be turned into [knowledge]2, a statement needs the next generation of papers [. . .] one way
to [follow contestation] is to examine the references in other articles subsequent to [what one
might call the root source] and to look at their context of citation. What did they do with what [the
root source] did? [. . .] By adding the later papers we may map out how the actions of the paper are
supported or not by other articles. The result is a cascade of transformations, each of them
expecting to be confirmed later by others (pp. 38-39, emphasis suppressed).
For Latour, then, “the construction of [knowledge] [. . .] is a collective process” (p. 29,
emphasis supplied) and he clearly envisages that the groups involved will not be exiguous:
When we go from “daily life” to scientific activity [. . .] we do not go from noise to quiet [. . .] We
go from controversies to fiercer controversies. It is like reading a law book and then going to court
to watch a jury wavering under the impact of contradictory evidence. Still better, it is like moving
from a law book to Parliament when the law is still a bill. More noise, indeed, not less (p. 30).
As we have seen, references may exhibit negative modality but:
[. . .] there is something worse [. . .] than being criticised by other articles; it is being misquoted
[. . .] Since each article adapts the former literature to suit its needs, all deformations are fair. A
given paper may be cited by others in a manner far from its own interests. It may be cited [. . .]
perfunctorily; or to support a claim which is [. . .] the opposite of what the author intended; or for
technical details [. . .]; or for many other reasons (pp. 39-40).
This is why, in mapping the development of the literature, it is important to look at what
Latour refers to as the context of citation.
MEDAR As we will see, there are, indeed, many reasons why a paper may be cited. To take two
26,1 straightforward examples, a paper may be cited as previous work in the subject area in a
citing paper that employs a different methodology, or information supplied in a paper,
which is not central to the knowledge claims of that paper, may be cited for purposes quite
unconnected with the claims of the cited paper. It is important to understand that, in
labelling citations “deformational”, Latour is not criticising their use for purposes other than
16 addressing the knowledge claim of the cited paper and thus offering positive or negative
modality to that claim. Nor is he attacking the motivation of the authors of the citing papers:
he is not, for example, suggesting that the citing authors are deliberately trying to distract
attention from the knowledge claim of the cited paper or in any way undermine it. He is
merely – but importantly – drawing attention to the point that, given that, on his model,
knowledge claims become accepted as knowledge as a formation of support is constructed
around them, any citation that does not address the claim directly, to support or contest it,
will deform the structure and move attention elsewhere.
Recently, sociologists of science have begun to examine in greater detail the patterns
exhibited within the literature as convergence comes about, or fails. Shwed and Bearman
(2010, pp. 817-818, one reference omitted) draw directly on Latour’s work to build a model of
convergence that identifies:
[. . .] three trajectories scientific propositions assume on their way through contestation to
consensus among practicing scientists: spiral, in which substantive questions are answered and
revisited at a higher level; cyclical, in which similar questions are revisited without stable closure;
and flat, in which there is no real scientific contestation.
They identify two sets of circumstances in which “flat science” (p. 835) can come about.
There may be “no epistemic rivalry” because there is “no coherent research agenda”, their
paradigm case being the carcinogenicity of coffee, where “the coincidence of coffee and
cancer in papers is largely the accidental by-product of large research efforts in cancer and
coffee respectively” (p. 835). In the other case, vaccinations and autism, “science speaks with
a single voice in opposition to a lay critique” (p. 835). There may, of course, be other
circumstances which result in “flat science”.
Fabricating social scientific knowledge

As we have seen, Latour himself sees his model as addressing the social processes of
knowledge fabrication rather than the uncovering of any transcendent reality:
[. . .] since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Nature’s representation not the
consequence, we can never use the outcome – Nature – to explain how and why a controversy has
been settled (Latour, 1987, p. 99, emphasis suppressed).
However, where some or all parties to a form of research (and, perhaps, to the analysis of its
literature) take a realist and empiricist stance in relation to that research – as,
quintessentially, in the case of the natural sciences – they may view what is called here
convergence as indicating not merely social agreement among scientists but also success in
uncovering the realities of what is being investigated, at least for now. As a consequence,
they may seek out a particularly fully developed form of convergence, meriting expressions
such as “consensus” and “closure” (as in the work of Shwed and Bearman, 2010). On this
view, the space between the nodes of a network takes on significance almost as great as that
of the nodes themselves: it is not only the case that it has been established that the answer to
question A is solution A’ but also the case that the answer is not A’’ or A’’’.
Such an interpretation might reasonably be extended to work undertaken by social Narrative
scientists adopting an empiricist, and especially a positivist, stance; however, its application accounting
to antifoundationalist paradigms would be highly questionable. How should one interpret –
indeed, should one look for – convergence in a “wide open theoretical world, one that is so
research
unrestricted and contested that it borders on, if it has not already descended into, chaos”
(Ritzer and Goodman, 2004, p. A17)?
One, extreme, view would be that we should not look for convergence of any kind: one
idea is only as good as any other and solution A’ does not rule out A’’ or A’’’. We should 17
expect to encounter not a web of knowledge organised into a network of nodes with space
between them but rather a thick ragout of notions, connected only in that they are made
contiguous by the absence of space between them, such space as there is being a sign not of
wrong answers but of underfunding of the programme.
On such a view, it seems that there would be nothing that could, in any worthwhile sense,
be called knowledge. But it is not a view that is widely held. The remark about chaos, quoted
above, appears in the 2004 edition of a very well-known, book-length, broadly chronological,
survey of sociological theory and is drawn from an appendix commenting on the state of
social theory. It is surely significant that, even into its final chapters, the survey material is
in fact organised by major theoretical movements, and currents within those movements,
quite often associated with a named thinker. Moreover, although the latest edition,
published a decade later, contains the same meta-theoretical appendix, the authors have
found that in the body of the text they simply need to add one further chapter at the end of
the chronological ordering, to cover “social theory in the twenty-first century” (Ritzer and
Stepnisky, 2014, p. 642), a chapter itself divided into themes. So it would seem that, despite
an appearance that might, perhaps somewhat hyperbolically, be described as approaching
chaos, it actually remains possible to discern a structure to the field of social theory and its
literature. It is also not difficult to find examples of contestation in the field of social theory.
Having done his best to demolish Marxist thinking, Jean Baudrillard (1977) famously turned
his attention to poststructuralism with a volume entitled Oublier Foucault – Forget
Foucault – “a significant confrontation on the French intellectual scene” and “a violent
challenge to the principal tenets of Michel Foucault’s epistemology” (Racevskis, 1979, p. 33).
This is not to suggest that, in examining the fabrication of social scientific knowledge, we
should expect to encounter the same extent and intensity of challenge and controversy – and
the same clarity and firmness of closure – that followers of Latour find in the natural
sciences. It may well be that progress is sometimes to be discerned in incremental steps
achieved uncontroversially or cooperatively. An approach that too keenly imitates the ways
of the natural sciences may provoke unnecessarily bellicose position-taking with, perhaps,
resolution achieved not by epistemic engagement but rather by the micro-political
management of the gatekeepers of the academy such as journal editors and reviewers. Such
an approach is, needless to say, to be resisted. But, equally, it seems likely that advances in
organised social scientific knowledge will, at least sometimes, be won by a degree of
contestation and convergence, so that it is worth analysing the literature to find out what
forms of epistemic engagement occur.
Turning to academic accounting, again, the authors of at least some surveys of social
theorisation in the area are able to organise their coverage by major theorists and themes:
Macintosh (2002), for example, devotes chapters to structuralism and poststructuralism,
literary theory, Baudrillard, Foucault and Bakhtin, while Hopper et al. (2015) employ
interpretivism, poststructuralism, political economy and institutional theory. Indeed, several
actor–network theory based surveys of knowledge production, focusing entirely or partially on
antifoundationalist thinkers, have been carried out successfully (Gendron and Baker, 2005;
MEDAR Joannidès and Berland, 2013; Malsch et al., 2011), while, equally, examples of contestation
26,1 within social theoretic thinking can be located, classic examples include Lodh and Gaffikin
(1997), Lowe (2004) and Tinker (2005).
Citation analysis is widely used to examine networks within knowledge production in
the social as well as the natural sciences: for recent examples drawn from applied social
sciences, see Barnett et al. (2011, communication studies), Vogel (2012, management),
18 Benckendorff and Zehrer (2013, tourism) and Wang and Bowers (2016, educational
administration). All the actor–network theory studies of academic accounting referred to in
the previous paragraph include an examination of publication patterns and two (Gendron
and Baker, 2005; Malsch et al., 2011) employ citation analysis in various forms.
It, thus, seems worthwhile to examine the extent to which we can observe some degree of
convergence or consolidation within an area of the academic accounting literature, even
where the literature adopts an antifoundationalist stance, and to do so by means of citation

analysis. As at least some convergence (and contestation) appears to exist at the level of the
deployment of leading theoreticians and their works, it also seems worthwhile to look for it a
finer level of detail involving their particular individual concepts and the application of their
ideas in specific contexts such as accounting narratives. A degree of consolidation – call it
agglutination or concretion, the emergence of “clumps” of thinking – will not, of course,
mark full consensus around a single acceptable answer but neither need we go to the
opposite extreme and expect only chaos. Even if we observe only minimal consolidation, we
will have found out something about the state of the literature.
Applying the model

Shwed and Bearman (2010, p. 822) themselves test for convergence employing large-scale
statistical modelling and an algorithm for measuring modality based on the “simple
intuition” that, as “papers that agree are likely to cite each other much more than their
protagonists [. . .] [,] when different communities are salient to the global structure, the field
is contentious”. Such an approach is not appropriate here on two grounds:
(1) the relatively limited amount of data available; and
(2) importance, in the light of this limitation, of the context of citation.
Fortunately, an alternative is available as we can draw on the report of an expert

identifying appropriate exemplary studies within each of the significant areas of the
literature. The report is Vivien Beattie’s (2014, p. 112) address on receiving a British
Accounting and Finance Association Distinguished Academic award, in which she
“offers a reflective commentary on key features of research into accounting
narratives”[2]. In the following section, each exemplar of narrative turn research has
been identified from Beattie’s address.
Each exemplar study forms the root source for an analysis of citations drawing on
Google Scholar. All works citing the root source are included in the reference group other
than those which are as follows:
not cited by any other source (so as to exclude highly peripheral literature; see
Small, 2006);
not in the discipline of accounting;
secondary literature (for example literature surveys, pedagogical works or
methodological commentary without accompanying original research);
not in English;
identifiable duplicates (for example a departmental paper and a journal article); or Narrative
untraceable (because insufficient details are provided) or inaccessible (for example accounting
because the link to a conference paper is now broken). research
The volume of works examined in this paper precludes the provision of a full classified
listing, but as an illustration of the method, Appendix gives an analysis of the reference
group for one of the exemplar studies.
19
Mapping the narrative turn literature
Attribution theory
Beattie’s (2014, p. 114, paragraph 3) discussion identifies Walter Aerts (1994) as “the leading
proponent” of attribution theory within accounting, citing more of his papers than of any
other author. His earliest paper (1994), also the earliest relevant paper cited by her, has had
longest to attract citations and is an appropriate work to employ as the root source for
analysis. Of the 77 works in the reference group for this paper[3], only 19 even adopt
attribution theory, the remainder being clearly, in Latour’s term, deformational. Over half of
these (11 including those with co-authors) are by Aerts himself or by Reggy Hooghiemstra,
on whose doctoral committee Aerts served (Hooghiemstra, 2003). Although Latour nowhere
says so explicitly, it is clear from his discussion that he does not expect challenges to emerge
from within an individual author’s output, so this dominance obviously reduces the scope
for contestation.
In the root source paper, Aerts is not concerned with the basic form of self-serving bias,
which involves positive outcomes being attributed to internal actions of the organisation
and negative outcomes to external events, a phenomenon that had been noted in the
literature on accounting narratives more than a decade before (Bettman and Weitz, 1983;
Staw et al., 1983). Rather, he focused on a possible further, complementary bias, a tendency
to employ technical accounting language as a defensive device to deflect attention from the
need to address causal questions. Aerts examined all the narrative content of the corporate
annual reports of 50 Belgian companies from 1983 and found a technical bias away from
using such language in explaining positive outcomes though no opposite equivalent for
negative ones. The consequence of this imbalance, he argued, is that “the interference of
accounting language with causal reasoning makes the self-presentational character of the
exhibited explanation patterns less visible” (p. 349). These findings offer a quite sharply
focused contribution to knowledge of accounting narratives, a refinement of the model of
self-serving attribution which, Aerts claims, is capable of yielding improved accuracy in the
detection and measurement of bias. It might be expected, then, that this claim would be
subject to substantial contestation as other actors test its robustness for modelling issues
(such as definitions and coding protocols), targets (different narratives) and contexts, to see
if it can be translated to their interests. A successful translation would see Aerts’ results
black-boxed, incorporated into the instrumentation employed to measure biasing in
accounting narratives, and no longer explicitly referred to. A failure in the trial of strength
would be marked by Aerts’ claims being overturned by later studies.
The actual pattern of citations is, however, quite different. Only two studies directly
address the interaction of causal and technical bias: Hooghiemstra’s (2003, p. 182) doctoral
thesis examines the US, Japanese and Dutch corporate annual report narratives and
summarises his results as “corroborating Aerts’ (1994) findings [. . .] irrespective of culture”,
while Aerts and Tarca (2010, p. 438) look at the Australian, British, Canadian and US
management commentaries and find “some weak support” for differences in biasing.
Beyond these studies, Aerts himself explores a number of associations with attributional
MEDAR behaviour including potential motivating factors (Aerts, 2005; Aerts and Theunisse, 2001),
26,1 reporting regime (Aerts et al., 2013; Aerts and Tarca, 2010), previous attributional behaviour
(Aerts, 2001), earnings management (Aerts and Cheng, 2011; Aerts et al., 2013) and analyst
forecast dispersion (Aerts and Tarca, 2014), in all cases differentiating technical bias.
However, as the research questions are so varied and the number of overlapping studies so
low, the scope for direct challenge is very limited. None of the other works in the reference
20 group actually employs Aerts’ concept of technical bias at all and some use attribution
theory to test for the existence of causal bias in further forms of narrative and regime, more
than two decades after its presence in accounting narratives was first documented, thereby
maintaining a degree of negative modularity in relation to causal bias itself[4].
Thus, although Aerts’ concept of technical biasing is certainly used by Aerts (without,
however, generating significant scope for contestation), it is neither taken up nor challenged
elsewhere in the literature – there is no convergence and no black-boxing. Although the
most recent of Aerts’ works in the reference group (Aerts and Tarca, 2014) does not cite the
root source specifically in connection with technical biasing (which might appear to indicate
black-boxing), this is only because it uses, and reproduces, the experimental protocol in
Aerts and Tarca (2010), which does cite the root source in this connection, as does the
penultimate work by Aerts (Aerts et al., 2013).
An issue recognised at the very beginning of research on attribution bias in accounting
narratives (Staw et al., 1983) is that it is possible that there is, in fact, a tendency for
organisational success to be disproportionately attributable to internal causes – for example,
if executive appointments do manage to recognise talent to any degree – in which case
apparently self-serving attributions may not constitute bias at all. The most recent
attribution theoretic study cited by Beattie (2014), Kimbrough and Wang (2014), begins
work to disentangle empirically grounded attributions from self-serving distortions. Merely
to raise the question that they ask is to reopen the issue of attribution bias and necessitates
their use of language such as “seemingly self-serving attributions” (as in their paper title,
emphasis added), a clear example of negative modality. Further, in discussing the origins of
their interest, they cite, not Aerts’ contributions, but earlier works such as Bettman and
Weitz (1983) and Staw et al. (1983), which, according to Latour’s model, would have long
since disappeared from the mainstream literature, to be mentioned only in historical surveys
and the like, had black-boxing of the basic self-serving bias in accounting narratives come
about.
Content analysis
One of a small number of exemplars offered in this category by Beattie (2014, p. 114,
paragraph 4 to p. 115, paragraph 1) is the report on a substantial grant-funded project
analysing the UK chairman’s statements and operating and financial reviews, which
appeared in interim (Beattie et al., 2002) and final (Beattie et al., 2004b) versions[5]. Beattie
(2014, p. 115) suggests that “the thematic holistic approach” to content analysis is
“exemplified by” this report and that “with hindsight, it can be seen that the study [. . .]
presaged the developments in text analysis discussed [later in her paper]”; one reviewer
considered it “a model for other content analysis researchers to follow” (Brennan, 2005,
p. 287). The methodology was explained in detail in the report and was also the subject of a
separate article (Beattie et al., 2004a), also cited by Beattie (2014) and used as the root source
for this analysis.
The research involved each separate piece of information being coded by topic and type:
the coding scheme featured nine first-level and 79 second-level topics while disclosure types
embraced 16 categories marshalled into three levels. No doubt because of the labour-
intensive nature of the coding and validation involved (Beattie, 2014, hints at this) the Narrative
number of reports examined was small: 27, drawn from three sectors and a single year. Even accounting
this sample yielded more than 12,000 separate items to be identified and coded.
The root source attracted widespread attention, receiving some 300 citations within a
research
decade of its appearance. Of the 89 of these satisfying the criteria for the reference group[6],
37 report work of a kind for which the methodology would not be appropriate, making the
citation deformational. The remaining 52 include 38 reporting studies employing one-
dimensional methods explicitly rejected by Beattie et al. (2004a, p. 213) on the grounds that 21
they “suffer from [a] fundamental limitation” in the face of the “complex, multi-faceted”
nature of the disclosures involved[7]. Nonetheless, this leaves 14 studies, 27 per cent of those
that could have used Beattie et al.’s methodology, adopting a multi-dimensional approach
which, on the surface, suggests that the method is finding significant support. However, all
but one of these are “partial” (Beattie et al., 2004a, p. 213) focusing on a single issue, thereby
suffering from the second fundamental limitation identified by Beattie et al.[8]. In addition,
the single-issue studies invariably use specific topic categories rather than the relevant
range from Beattie et al.’s scheme; none of the studies in this category used Beattie et al.’s full
set of type categories, and many employed schemes with minimal overlap with Beattie et al.
or a different unit of analysis, all of which further reduces the scope for challenge. Ironically,
the one study examining whole narratives (Laohapolwatana et al., 2005) addresses a
different document to Beattie et al. (news releases), employs a bespoke topic breakdown and
a set of type categories none of which overlap at any point with Beattie et al.’s, and even uses
a different unit of analysis from that recommended by Beattie et al. (sentences versus
disclosure items).
While the absence of a follow-up study, employing the same methodology to address the
full extent of narrative disclosure in corporate annual reports, may be understandable in the
light of the labour intensity of the work required, it does mean that we have no way of
knowing whether Beattie et al.’s results hold for other business sectors, other reporting
regimes or through time, the latter dimension being particularly important given the
frequent changes in recommendations and requirements applying to narrative disclosure in
the UK since the survey was undertaken. In view of the limited sample size, it would, indeed,
be interesting to know if the results would hold in a direct replication study. It is the scope
and depth of Beattie et al.’s (2004a) methodology that justifies its exemplary status for
Beattie (2014) and for Brennan (2005) but we see neither a significant level of challenge to
this methodology nor its absorption into the literature. Studies in the reference group do not
merely fail to adopt Beattie et al.’s comprehensive and multidimensional approach,
preferring instead single dimensional and partial methods; they scatter across a wide field
examining different topics, topic classifications, type categories, reporting regimes,
narratives and quantification methods (including, as the most popular method, the
disclosure index that does not form part of Beattie et al.’s method at all), rarely achieving a
significant level of challenge and hence scope for meaningful convergence. This extensive
deformation employs the root source as a cover for limited and partial methods already in
use prior to its appearance and explicitly rejected by it.
Rhetorical analysis
The author named most frequently in Beattie’s (2014, p. 115, paragraphs 2-3 and p. 119,
paragraph 1) discussion of rhetorical analysis is Jane Davison (2008), and the one study of
hers embracing both text and image (2008) is the most suitable focus for analysis. This sets
out to construct a framework for identifying repetition in accounting narratives, drawing on
rhetoric (from which Davison borrows the figures, anadiplosis, anaphora, alliteration/rhyme
MEDAR and lists) and the philosophy of Barthes, Deleuze, Eliade and Jankélévitch. She takes
26,1 anadiplosis to be the repetition of words or phrases though, as she points out (p. 797), in
formal rhetoric it is usually understood more narrowly as the repetition of a word or phrase
from the end of one clause at the beginning of the next, so that hers represents a quite
expansionary translation of the rhetorical figure to her interests. She employs her
framework to identify repetition in the annual reviews of BT, used to draw attention to its
22 intangibles and to differentiate the company, particularly during the “dot-com” era.
Davison explicitly offers her paper as a contribution to research methodology (p. 820)
but, of the 24 works in the reference group[9], none adopts the framework set out in her
article. A number of the works address rhetorical themes using different approaches from
that employed by Davison; several of these, like Davison’s, examine repetition. Lennon
(2013, p. 6, emphasis supplied) follows the root source in adopting a Deleuzian approach but
employs it to grapple with the significance of the accounting system as a whole:

Starting from understanding accounting calculations as signs, it could be interesting to study
accounting as repetitions, because the notions of repetitions and difference from Deleuze [. . .] allow
us to understand how accounting acts not as representations nor inscriptions but as assemblages
of signs that actualise the world in the form humans understand it.
The root source is cited in Lennon’s literature review but not in the concluding chapter’s
discussion “relating the empirical findings with the literature reviewed” (p. 207).
Davison (2014), like the root source, borrows from Barthes and examines repetition,
but this time adopts a framework from Durand, classifying instances between
duplication of identical items, similar items, multiple items and serial repetition. This
classification is also used by Pesci et al. (2015, p. 765) who, however, fit it into a Humean
scheme that sees repetition as “helping the process of knowledge acquisition”, thus
acknowledging that at least some degree of repetition may be useful. When we read
Gertrude Stein’s (often-misquoted) line, “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” (from Sacred
Emily), we have no rule to tell us how many references to the bloom constitute the
minimum necessary to make sense before any rhetorical flourish can be thought to be
under way – nor do we need one. But surely, in accounting, a certain amount of
duplication may be desirable for effective communication? Yet Davison offers, as
evidence of anadiplosis in the chief executive’s statements, the fact that he employs the
word “customer” a total of 44 times, “global” 20 times and “opportunity” 14 times, over
the six years from 1996 to 2001, i.e. an average of 7, 3, 2 and 2 times per year (Table II).
Does it really make sense to think of a chief executive referring to opportunities twice in
the course of an annual review as resorting to repetition as a rhetorical device[10]? Pesci
et al. (2015) examine both images and text so that one of their examples of repetition is a
report from a company that not only points out in its text that it awards scholarships but
also includes a photograph of some of its scholarship holders[11]. Finally, Halim and
Jafaar (2012) document repetition using surely the traditional accounting method,
namely, totting up instances of the same information given more than once.
The total absence of a further study employing Davison’s research framework – its own
irony, perhaps as the subject is repetition – makes all 24 works in the reference group
deformational, although the degree of deformation depends on whether her contribution is
read in specific terms or merely as a call to rhetorical analysis in accounting. In the latter
case, it is hardly original: her paper cites examples pre-dating hers by a decade. It is possible
to construct a highly limited degree of challenge, for example, if Pesci et al.’s (2015)
essentially functional Humean approach to repetition is seen as opposing Davison’s
postmodernism. There is, however, nothing such as enough engagement to discern Narrative
convergence on methods or findings. accounting
research
Linguistic analysis
Beattie’s (2014, p. 115, paragraph 4 and p. 116, paragraphs 5-6) earliest exemplars of
linguistic analysis are two papers by Robin Sydserff and Weetman (1999, 2002) whose
purpose is to translate ideas from the field of applied linguistics to design specific research
instruments intended to capture characteristics of accounting narratives. Between them the
23
papers propose three instruments and, because each instrument is quite tightly defined, it
presents a sharply focused target for contestation.
The earlier paper proposed a single instrument, a manually applied “texture index”
and illustrates its use by measuring the section of the operating and financial review of
ten large quoted UK companies addressing operating results. Of the 41 items in the
reference group[12], only two actually employ the texture index and the first (Iu and
Clowes, 2001) is effectively a trial run for the second (Iu and Clowes, 2004), which has yet
to appear in a journal. Iu and Clowes (2004) is specifically described as designed to
evaluate Sydserff and Weetman’s instrument but applies it to a different section (the first
20 sentences) of a different narrative (the letter to shareholders) in different countries
(Australia, Hong Kong and the USA), making it impossible to establish if it yields stable
results from a similar population. The authors find that the Hong Kong narratives were
in general higher in quality than those from the USA and Australia but do not offer any
independent evidence that this is a reliable ranking. One other work (Merkl-Davies and
Brennan, 2005) directly addresses the texture index, offering a critique of its methodology
and an alternative approach. Overall, then, there is almost no challenge and what little
there is appears unresolved.
The second paper offers two instruments. One is a manually applied “transitivity
index” (Sydserff and Weetman, 2002, p. 527), which measures the extent of passive
constructions in a text. Of the 47 works in the reference group[13] none used the
transitivity index. The second instrument is a commercially available computer
package, DICTION, which measures the verbal tone of text on five “master variables”,
certainty, optimism, activity, realism and commonality. It does so by employing a
number of standard word-lists and calculated parameters and the package supplies
both the word-lists and the program to carry out the test. Nine studies used the
package, offering some reasonable prospect of contestation, which did not, however,
materialise. Four studies examined a reporting regime not examined by any other
study; three studies examined a narrative not examined by any other study, and five
studies used only a subset of master variables or a hand-built word-list (thereby
effectively using DICTION only for its software). The only overlaps across two or all
three categories (that is, regime, narrative and word-lists) were as follows. Three
studies examined US CEO letters, of which two used all the master variables and one
realism only. A fourth examined Indian CEO letters using all master variables. The two
fully matching studies were by the same authors (Patelli and Pedrini, 2014, 2015) and
tested different relationships with tone (financial performance and accounting
aggressiveness). The other two studies offered a proposed taxonomy (Craig and
Brennan, 2012) and tested the detection of deceptive conduct (Craig et al., 2013),
respectively. Two studies of environmental reports used optimism and certainty master
variables only, one examining the USA (Cho et al., 2010) and one Japan (Nakao et al.,
2013), so that any differences in results could as plausibly be attributable to culture as
to inadequacies in the research instrument. Even though there is a readily available
MEDAR research tool embodying the proposed methodology, insufficient contestation occurs to
26,1 yield any meaningful level of convergence.
Tone
The earliest study of corporate annual report narratives offered as an exemplar in this
category by Beattie (2014, p. 116, paragraphs 1-4, and p. 117, paragraph 3) is Schleicher and
24 Walker (2010, p. 384), which examined the tone of forward-looking narratives in the outlook
sections of the UK annual reports for 502 firm-years in which the following year’s operating
performance strongly increased or declined. Tone was established by manually coding
statements as positive, neutral or negative, with tone measured as the difference between the
number of positive and negative statements expressed as a proportion of total statements.
Poor performers made fewer positive statements and more negative ones than good
performers but nonetheless had a net balance of positive statements and hence a positive
value for tone, which Schleicher and Walker interpret as showing that poor performers “bias
the tone of forward-looking narratives upwards”.
As the root source appeared relatively recently it is perhaps a little early to attempt to
draw a conclusion in this case, but the early indications are ambivalent to say the least. Of
the 17 works in the reference group[14], 8 do not address narratives (for example, looking at
investor attitudes) or tone, leaving nine that do address tone and narratives and, thus, might
challenge the root source. One of these is a further analysis of the same data by one of the co-
authors. None of the remaining eight examine the same reporting regime or the same
narrative as the root source and only four examine corporate annual report narratives. Six
studies examine only relationships other than with company performance and use a
different method from the root source, preferring the so-called “bag of words” approach in
which individual words in the text are compared to established word-lists to identify overall
tone; consequently, they present only a very oblique challenge to the root source. Two
studies, (Melloni, 2015; Melloni et al., 2016) do address, among other things, the relationship
between tone and company performance and code text units and thus, although the
narratives they examine (intellectual capital disclosures and business model disclosures
respectively) and the sampling frame (an international sample) are different, they do offer
scope for a challenge to the root source. Unfortunately, they only code text units between
positive and all other, so the opportunity to compare results for negative units is lost.
Melloni et al. (2016, p. 316) “provide evidence of a positive association between declining
performance and positive tone” in business model disclosures, observing that their “finding
is consistent with [. . .] Schleicher and Walker (2010) who show that firms with declining
performance are more likely to report good news”. But, of course, what Schleicher and
Walker show is that firms with declining performance are more likely to report good news
than bad news, not that firms with declining performance are more likely to report good
news than other firms. Melloni et al. (2016) are unable to confront Schleicher and Walker’s
results directly because they do not code negative statements separately.
Story-telling and sense-making

Almost all the accounting studies Beattie (2014, p. 117, paragraphs 4-5, and p. 118,
paragraphs 1-4) refers to in this category are of recent origin but one research thread
originated over ten years ago; it features three works by the same author, of which one,
Holland (2005), is an article in a refereed scholarly journal and can be employed as the root
source for analysis. Holland’s objective is to a build a fairly general model of corporate
financial disclosure, embracing annual reporting and other channels and focusing on UK
companies. He does so by translating to his interest grounded theory, a very widely used
sociological method originally developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, although Narrative
several variants have since emerged (Ralph et al., 2015). Holland (2005, p. 251) himself cites accounting
Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Locke (2001) as methodological sources and, perhaps more
importantly, “seminal work” (Holland, 2005, p. 264) by Gibbins et al. (1990), using grounded
research
theory to model financial disclosure by medium-sized Canadian companies in the 1980s. The
two models are similar in outline and the differences in specific behaviours and structures
are attributed by Holland (2005, p. 264) to the “quite different contexts” under examination.
Although the maturity and widespread use of grounded theory, the range of guidance 25
available and the previous study of Gibbins et al. (1990), made it unlikely that Holland’s
work would be challenged on his methodology, it remained open to a struggle to defend his
application of it, including his detailed findings; the latter, of course, might also be contested
from alternative methodological positions. Of the 28 works in the reference group[15], 11
employ grounded theory but four of these do not relate to corporate disclosure. Those
relating to corporate disclosure can be divided into three categories. The first contains four
studies which address a context substantially different from Holland’s (such as charities) or
a specific topic within disclosure (such as the use of group presentations to analysts) rather
than, as Holland’s model does, disclosure generally. This obviously reduces the likelihood of
a direct challenge and, indeed, none occurs. Three works cite the root article in connection
with methodology, but only as support for the use of grounded theory generally, or as a
specimen study employing it, of for guidance on interview design. Two cite findings but in
one case they are given only as part of the description of the root source as a specimen study,
and thus are not even compared with the findings of the citing study, and in one case they
provide some corroboration but could not have been directly contradicted by the root source.
This case was Fieseler’s (2011, p. 139) study of analysts’ responses to corporate social
responsibility disclosures, which found that, “analysts do [. . .] welcome firms that try to
build trust, and thus improve their capital market reputation via openness and non-
mandatory disclosure (Holland, 2005, [. . .])”, citing Holland’s findings though these actually
relate to managers’ beliefs about analysts’ attitudes, not analysts’ attitudes as such.
The second category contains two studies by Holland himself which set out to extend the
root source. As already mentioned, although it is not ruled out in principle, work by the
same author would not normally be where we would look for challenge and none occurs
here: indeed, both studies use the same data as the root source. The third category contains
one study that has sufficient in common with the methodology and context of the root
source to provide a degree of contestation. Mayorga (2013) cites the earlier study by Gibbins
et al. (1990) as the methodological source, and addresses a somewhat different context to the
root source, namely, disclosures by Australian companies under a continuous disclosure
(CD) obligation, but does compare results with the root source:
[. . .] the study refines, and in some cases confirms, previous research on the management of
corporate financial disclosure ([. . .] Holland, 2005, p. 1160) [. . .] The study’s results show that
while there are common antecedents, structures and issues influencing companies’ CD practices
and attitudes there are also differences. It appears that a one size fits all disclosure model cannot
completely predict how companies will manage CD.
So the challenge to the root source is that it contains a degree of generalisation that cannot
fully account for all the behaviour of all companies.
The 17 studies not employing grounded theory used a wide range of methodologies
ranging from sophisticated statistical modelling to interpretive and constructivist
approaches. Although they could not, of course, challenge the methodology of the root
source they might have challenged its findings. In fact, as we will see in the next section,
most did not bring their findings into contestation with the root source. Only two studies
MEDAR actually brought their findings directly into contrast with the root source, in both cases
26,1 reporting that they were consistent.
Discourse analysis
Milne et al. (2009) is the earliest study cited by Beattie (2014, p. 118, paragraphs 5-6) and,
thus, the one with the greatest opportunity to garner citations. The study is a critical
26 analysis of eight New Zealand corporate sustainable development reports (and one by a
business association) drawing on the methodology of depth hermeneutics proposed by
J . B. Thompson (1984, 1990, p. 1211) and based on the work of Paul Ricoeur. It finds that the
reports:
[. . .] present a pragmatic and middle-way discourse [. . .] [which] suggests that businesses are
‘doing’ sustainability [. . .] [but] reveal a narrow, largely economic and instrumental approach to
the natural environment.

Of the 55 works in the reference group[16], 13 address corporate report narratives (some also
addressing other subjects) and 16 address other discourses susceptible to discourse analysis
(stakeholder views, for example expressed in interviews: 6; policy documents: 4; media
articles: 2; corporate promotional material: 2; regulation: 1; and analysts’ advice: 1). Of these
29 studies, only three examining corporate reporting and one other employ Thompsonian
discourse analysis and two of those examining corporate reporting (Tregidga et al., 2010,
2012) are by teams including an author of the root source and use discourse analysis only to
identify research gaps in the literature rather than to undertake fundamental research. Thus,
only one study of corporate reporting (Mäkelä and Laine, 2011) and one other (of rating
agency publications, Chelli and Gendron, 2013) undertake fundamental research using
Thompsonian discourse analysis, offering only an extremely limited degree of challenge to
the root source’s findings. The position in relation to a detailed comparison of findings is
similar: only two studies of corporate reporting compare findings other than in very general
terms, one (Higgins and Walker, 2012) using rhetorical analysis and one (Tregidga et al.,
2014), by a team including an author of the root source, using Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse
theory. One other study (Milne et al., 2011), of analysts’ advice, and by a team including an
author of the root source, also compares findings to the root source but, inevitably, only
indirectly.
Deformational citation
When a citation is given in a paper that does not use the specific method of the root source,
or, still more so, its methodology, and perhaps does not even address a research subject that
enables direct comparison of findings to be made, we observe the deformation of the root
source in the interests of the citing source. It is interesting to examine whether this strategy
is succeeding in the case of narrative turn research, that is, whether the actors represented
by the citing sources are overwhelming the actors responsible for the root source to translate
its claims to a new purpose. Space constraints preclude an analysis of all the root sources
examined in this paper; two have been chosen for attention because the very generality of
their approach makes the attempt to translate it to another purpose particularly dramatic.
In the case of Holland’s grounded theory of corporate financial disclosure (discussed in the
section on story-telling and sense-making), 17 works in the reference group did not in fact employ
grounded theory, making their citation of his work deformational. Perhaps reflecting Holland’s
own approach, most studies did not adopt a strong theoretical perspective, although information
theory, Gabriel’s story typology and Di Maggio and Powell’s model of isomorphic change were
each used in one work. The remaining studies employed statistical modelling (7 cases), interview,
questionnaire or observation methods (4), content analysis (2) and case studies (2) with one study Narrative
falling into two of these categories. Fifteen of the studies addressed corporate disclosure but only accounting
five of these looked at this, as Holland’s work does, in general terms, the remainder examines
quite narrow aspects of the process, no two studies looking at the same aspect. The aspects
research
examined were audit and reporting format decisions, finance directors’ beliefs about disclosure
decisions, the impact of governance decisions on IPO values, disclosure of reasons for governance
code departures, IFRS adoption and human capital information respectively, analyst meetings,
credibility of forward-looking disclosures, use of intellectual capital information by analysts and 27
the implementation of financial reporting standards. The remaining studies examined subjects
outside corporate financial disclosure, with one work each on performance measurement systems
in the public sector and the work of fund managers. Overall, then, there is no evidence of
Holland’s paper being commandeered by any particular theoretical camp or subject interest
group outside the broadly defined area of corporate disclosure.

What do these studies use citations to Holland’s work for? Only one of the 17 studies
brought its findings directly into contestation with Holland’s, as it happens, judging them to
be consistent (Mundy et al., 2011). The nearest to a synchronous attempt to translate his
claims for an alternative purpose that can be identified here is the use of findings from his
study as inputs to statistical modelling, made by five of the seven papers using such
modelling. While it may well be legitimate to employ findings from a grounded theory
approach in statistical modelling, if this (still very much nascent) deformation were to
become successful to the point of overwhelming others, its consequence would be likely to
be to remove the original claim from the arena of the narrative turn (none of the studies
addresses accounting narratives as text rather than disclosure items) and, perhaps, of
accounting narratives entirely (only one of the studies looks specifically at narratives rather
than financial reports generally or other issues such as valuation). One other statistical
modelling study uses findings as background but not as an input. One study attempts to
translate Holland’s methodology to support another methodology (Di Maggio and Powell’s
model of isomorphic change) as consistent with Holland’s.
The remaining cases do not represent translations of the methodology or findings of the
root source because they relate to claims that are peripheral in the root source or are used
only tangentially in the citing source or are not employed in the argument of the citing
source at all. The most common example of deformation in relation to this root source is its
use collaterally, that is introducing the source in parallel with the content of the citing work
but without bringing claims from the two works into any kind of epistemic relation, in this
case by offering the work as an example of previous studies, and thus, for example,
legitimising the area as one justifying research, but without bringing the findings of the root
and citing sources into direct comparison. Seven studies cited the root source in this way,
two actually emphasising that Holland’s was an alternative to the approach of the citing
source. One citing source used the root source to justify a claim that was peripheral in the
root source (a point on questionnaire design) and three used claims tangentially in the citing
source, in this case as background to the research design or interpretation of findings[17].
Examples of the various categories of deformation discussed above are given in Table I.
In the case of Milne et al.’s Thompsonian discourse analysis (discussed in the section on
discourse analysis), we have seen that of the 55 works in the reference group, four used their
methodology and three others made a detailed comparison of findings, leaving 48 apparent
deformations. The methodologies employed by these studies spread scross a remarkably broad
range and include other forms of discourse analysis[18] (6 – Foulcauldian: 3, Habermassian: 1,
framing theory: 1, generic: 1), positivist empirical methods (4), grounded theory (2), institutional
theory (2), one each of behavioural experimentation, action learning, theories of organisational
MEDAR
Citing source Loc. Example Comments
26,1
Attempted translation of findings for an alternative purpose
Chahine and 1/1 We also add the Debt ratio and we Debt ratio is a variable in a
Filatotchev (2011, expect that firms encountering simultaneous equation system used
p. 166, emphasis more significant financial to test whether audit and non-audit
supplied) constraints, i.e. higher financial fees are jointly determined
28 leverage, are more likely to increase
their efforts to generate and disclose
accounting-related information at
the time of IPO (Holland, 2005)
Attempted translation of methodology as support for an alternative methodology
Maroun and van 2/2 The intention is . . . This is
Zijl (2015, p. 13) consistent with the approach of

comparable studies where the social
construction of corporate
governance and mechanisms of
accountability are the focal point of
the research [see, for example,
Holland, 2005 (and another source)]
Collateral deformation – Cited as a previous study without direct comparison of findings
Collis (2012, 1/1 Over recent decades considerable
p. 444) attention has been paid to
developing theory in the context of
voluntary disclosures by large,
listed companies (Holland 2005 [and
other sources]), but very little
research has been carried out in
small, private companies
Beattie and Smith 1/2 Researchers have also adopted Citing study does not use this
(2012, p. 475) qualitative, interview-based methodology
methods and a grounded theory
approach to the investigation of the
disclosure decision-making process
[Holland, 2005 (and other sources)]
Beattie and Smith, 2/2 Holland (2005) finds that voluntary Findings are not compared with
2012 (p. 475) public disclosure comprises a those of the citing study
fragmented story which exists
partly to legitimise additional
disclosures via semi-private and
private channels which offer
supplementary detail and
connecting explanation
Peripheral deformation – Claim in root source is incidental
Table I. Armitage and 1/1 Our questions . . . were designed “to A routine aspect of questionnaire
Examples of Marston (2008, allow the participants to interpret design
deformational p. 318) and describe the phenomena in their
citations of Holland own way” (Holland, 2005, p. 250)
(2005) (continued)
Narrative
Citing source Loc. Example Comments accounting
Tangential deformation – Claim in citing source is used incidentally
research
Barker et al. (2012, 1/1 [Meetings with analysts] were also The citation appears in the section
p. 210) valued by companies seeking of the paper dealing with research
investor confidence and a design and justifies interest in such
reputation for openness (Holland, meetings but the research is 29
2005 [and another source]) concerned with analysts, not
companies
Note: Loc.: Location of example within all citations to the root source Table I.
change, appraisal theory, comparative case studies, semiotics, Erik Olin Wright’s framework,
Boltanski and Thévenot’s sociology of worth, Gabriel’s poetic analytics, Eagleton’s model of
ideological strategies, communication theory, Abrahamson’s typology of innovation diffusion,
stakeholder and legitimacy theory, philosophical pragmatism and systems theory, generic
discursive methods (13, mainly critical analyis and literature-based argumentation not
embracing a specific theoretical or methodological framework) and mixed methods (6). Much
the same pattern emerges from an examination of research subjects. Only eight of the studies
address the research target of the root source, corporate reporting, with 14 addressing other
discourses (stakeholder views: 6, policy documentation: 4, articles in the media: 2, corporate
websites: 1 and regulation: 1), nine addressed subjects potentially amenable to analysis in terms
of discourse but probably not to discourse analysis (for example disclosures treated as units of
information rather than text, the financial reporting process as such, and performance
indicators) and 17 addressed subjects other than discourses (for example organisational
characteristics and behaviour, scholarly research itself, pedagogy and accounting processes).
Overall, then, there is no evidence for the root source being commandeered by another actor-
network for its own interests; rather many different networks are seeking to deform its claims
in the direction of many different networks.
As to what the citations are used for, almost half (22) represent attempts to translate the
findings of the root source as support for research by other methods or methodologies and in
most cases on other research subjects, but there was no evidence of these attempts
converging on a particular outcome and little effort by actors employing discourse analysis
to adopt this manoeuvre, with only one of the six studies using discourse analysis
attempting it and the remainder of the attempts spread across the very broad range of
methods and methodologies, and research subjects, already described. As in the Holland
case, there were attempts at peripheral (11) and collateral (7) deformation and two further
categories can be identified, adventitious and divergent use of claims. Adventitious use
(seven cases) arises where the claim in the root source may well be central (rather than
peripheral), but is advanced at a high level of generality such that a wide range of sources
could have been used by the citing source, which, thus, appears merely to have alighted on
the root source randomly rather than the choice being structurally significant. Divergent use
(one case) arises where the uses of the claim in the root source and the citing source actually
point in different directions. Examples of each category are given it Table II.
The flat science of the narrative turn

Beattie (2014) shows us that it is possible to construct a narrative of the narrative turn in narrative
accounting research – a narrative of the emergence of scholarly knowledge across a variety of
MEDAR
Citing source Loc. Example Comments
26,1
Attempted translation of findings as support for an alternative methodology/research subject
Contrafatto and 1/4 Although the term “sustainability” has The methodology used is theories
Burns (2013, p. 349, been debated in the organisational of organisational change and the
emphasis supplied) literature for some time, there is still research subject is organisational
ambiguity concerning its meaning . . . and behaviour
30 whether (and how) this notion can be
applied in the context of business and
corporations [Milne et al., 2009 (and other
sources)]
Chan et al. (2014, 1/1 However, it should be noted that The methodology used stakeholder
p. 61) disclosures prompted by an organization’s and legitimacy theory and the
desire to increase its legitimacy are likely research subject is preparers’
to be limited to “good” news [Milne et al., characteristics

2009 (and another source)]
Collateral deformation – Cited as a previous study without direct comparison of findings
Oakes and Oakes 1/2 Consistent with previous research (Milne
(2012, p. 211) et al., 2009 [and other sources]), the
current paper amplifies theory through
empirical clarification based on analysis
of documentary evidence
Oakes and Oakes 2/2 Thus, the Arts Council Review reflected a
(2012, p. 220) two-tier arts policy and discourses of
concealment (Milne et al., 2009) suggesting a
tension between facts and norms
Gray et al. (2014, 1/1 Is there no longer an appetite to address The root source is an exception to
p. 265) matters of conflict and power? We are the general charge. It adopts a
moving further away from the grounding critical approach – and so does the
of praxis not closer to it. . . . Nowhere does citing source
this seem to be more pronounced than in
accounting and reporting where
“sustainability reporting” has nothing
evidentially to do with sustainability,
where researchers will uncritically
examine initiatives in “sustainability
reporting” which have nothing to do with
sustainability and enormously influential
movements . . . pass almost without
murmur [but see Milne et al., 2009 (and
other sources)]
Peripheral deformation – Claim in root source is incidental
Tregidga et al. 1/1 Within this context [New Zealand], there
(2013, p. 104) are a limited and “visible” number of
groups and individuals engaged in the
sustainable development debate (see
Milne et al., 2009)
Jones (2010, p. 124) 1/1 Indeed, demands for businesses to act in
Table II. ways consistent with social and
Examples of environmental accounting and
deformational sustainable development are growing
citations of Milne (Milne et al., 2009)
et al. (2009) (continued)
Narrative
Citing source Loc. Example Comments accounting
Adventitious deformation – Claim could have been cited from many sources
research
Lawrence et al. 1/1 The continued pursuit of economic An almost infinite range of sources
(2013, p. 146) growth may mean that organisations are is available to support this claim
destroying the social and ecological
environments on which we all depend 31
[Milne et al., 2009 (and another source)]
Correa and Laine 1/1 Overall, we argue that understanding An almost infinite range of sources
(2013, p. 139) underlying political views, personal is available to support this claim
values and motivational features are
quintessential aspects of research in the
social sciences (Milne et al., 2009, p. 1,224)
Divergent deformation – Claims in root and citing source point in different directions
Leong et al. (2014, 1/2 Our theoretical framework is based on the The root source does indeed cite
p. 97) work of John Dryzek . . . [which] has been the work but uses a methodology
cited in numerous SEA papers [Milne from a different source
et al., 2009 (and other sources)]
Note: Loc.: Location of example within all citations to the root source Table II.
research paradigms and methodologies and focused on exemplary studies supported by

significant volumes of citations from within the field. Further analysis, however, suggests that it
would be wrong to infer from the range and level of citations that these exemplary studies have
survived substantial degrees of contestation or that they reveal a literature converging to any
substantial degree on their methods or findings – in other words, that they constitute the nodes in
a network of scholarly knowledge. Typically, many citations are deformational in that they deflect
attention to some other paradigm or methodology or area of interest. In some cases, the ironic
consequence of the deformation is to inject negativity into the translation of the cited work,
drawing attention to its tentative status and thus moving it further away from black-boxing.
Citing studies that are not deformational frequently use methods or address subjects sufficiently
removed from the cited (exemplary) study as to undermine any significant scope for challenge and
thus leave the cited study with its exemplary status for lack of contestation rather than from
winning a trial of strength.
In a couple of cases, the recency of the exemplar may be a factor in the limited degree of
challenge so far apparent, which may increase over the next few years. However, there are
few grounds for optimism: at least five years have passed in all cases and significant
numbers of citations have occurred, without so far generating material contestation, so that
it seems more likely that the pattern of exemplars of earlier vintage will be followed. The
picture presented by the analysis of this paper is, then, of a generally low level of epistemic
engagement – in Shwed and Bearman’s terms, flat science. Latour’s hydrological metaphor
seems particularly appropriate: claims to knowledge spring up and meander across a broad
floodplain, undisciplined by levees of mutual support and without merging or
overwhelming other flows to form a well-defined watercourse. Several factors are likely to
be implicated in this lack of epistemological engagement.
One feature of the sociology of scholarly life, which may well have played a part is the
well-documented appetite of the gatekeepers of academic publications for innovative work
(Moizer, 2009): indeed, describing their attitude to the task of selecting from among the
submissions for a special issue on accounting narratives, the editors said:
MEDAR [. . .] we focused particularly [. . .] on those pieces which we judged to offer innovative theoretical
approaches and/or fresh types of empirical material, in preference to those we regarded as
26,1 incremental contributions (Beattie and Davison, 2015, pp. 655-656).
Researchers keen to respond to these pressures may be more likely to look for new topics
and methods rather than contest existing findings, with the danger that they will end up
“merely” replicating a previous study. Another factor might be researchers’ desire to work
32 within a context with which they are familiar or to which they feel they owe some allegiance
(perhaps the country of their employing institution), which might make them reluctant to
engage with previous studies.
Scholars of a strongly antifoundationalist persuasion may be content with – or even
welcome – a lack of contestation or convergence as undermining scientistic presumptions.
Even on this view, it seems desirable that we should recognise the nature of the narrative we
encounter. However, as argued earlier, the literature of social theory does not in general
reflect an attitude of “anything goes”, so we might reasonably look for some degree of
convergence in research activity conducted even in antifoundationalist paradigms.
The absence of epistemic contestation in the literature examined in this paper is not the
consequence of an absence of a coherent research agenda, evidence of which is, indeed,
supplied by the expert’s report on which the status of the works analysed here is based. So
the first of Shwed and Bearman’s (2010) categories of flat science does not apply. But neither
is the science examined here “speaking with a single voice” in opposition to some external
advocacy, their second category – recall that they use the phrase metaphorically to mean
many scientists saying the same thing. In the case considered in this paper, science is
actually speaking literally (more or less) with a single voice: the resources of the relevant
academic community are spread so thinly that each seam – each research question, each
methodology or method, each research context – is mined by no more than a small handful
of researchers unable to generate a meaningful volume of contestation. Continuing Latour’s
hydrological metaphor, small numbers of engineers can plot out potential canals and dams
but lack the resources necessary to carry through significant construction work. Of course,
all scholars are keen to produce dramatically innovative work, but in a well-populated
community, there will be sufficient incentive also to undertake the kind of challenges and
trials of strength, which can lead to the consolidation of scholarly knowledge – challenges
that can yield studies that qualify as imaginative and innovative. Rather than a rich network
developing and sustaining scientific knowledge, we observe an array of largely
unreticulated cells, possibly displaying some element of patterning but with only a very
limited number of connections[19]. The apparent coherence and structure of knowledge in
the field follows not from epistemic contestation and convergence but from the way in which
the research narrative is narrated.
Implications for research

Even if there were no other evidence, the volume of citations garnered for the analysis in this
paper suggests that though it may not be huge, the academic community researching
accounting narratives by “narrative turn” approaches is large enough to sustain meaningful
epistemic contestation around a reasonable number of research issues and methodologies. If
meaningful convergence is to be achieved, the problem, then, is not the paucity of scholars
working in the field as such but rather their distribution across too wide a range of projects.
This argues that the relevant academic community must somehow marshal its resources to
focus on a limited portfolio of projects. How is this to be achieved?
Academics are notoriously difficult to nudge, let alone influence in a systematic way,
coordinate or manage, but efforts to do so are surely worth making. The community can look to
its academic leaders for advice and guidance on the directions in which narrative turn research Narrative
in accounting should proceed – and might well be inclined to accept this guidance given that it accounting
comes from those who are likely to be the gatekeepers for future papers.
At the moment such guidance as is emanating from the leaders of this particular research
research
community is tending towards a quite different approach to that argued for here. Merkl-
Davies and Brennan (2007, section 5.2), in their survey of disclosure strategies in corporate
narratives, propose a number of new theoretical perspectives and approaches including
social psychology, behavioural finance, institutional theory, politics and qualitative content 33
analysis (see also Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2011). A call for papers for a special issue on
accounting narratives (Beattie and Davison, 2013, p. 160) explained that the issue was
intended “to encourage the broad spectrum of research into narratives” and suggested that
studies “might be based in economics, psychology, psychoanalysis, philosophy, (social)
linguistics, sociology [or] literary criticism”. Describing their attitude to the task of selecting
from among the submissions for the issue, the editors said:
We received [. . .] papers [. . .] taking a very broad range of approaches. In shortlisting those we
would accept for the review process we focused particularly (in addition to quality and rigour) on
those pieces which we judged to offer innovative theoretical approaches and/or fresh types of
empirical material, in preference to those we regarded as incremental contributions (Beattie and
Davison, 2015, pp. 655-56).
Exciting as it is to promote and engage in innovation and the radical translation of the more
exotic social scientific and humanistic methodologies to accounting research, the evidence of
this paper is that it may undermine the successful development of scholarly knowledge by
discouraging the less sensational but nonetheless essential work of widening and deepening,
challenge and contestation, with the prospect of convergence this can bring.
Notes
1. Latour tends to use the expression “fact”, but, in the light of this paper’s application of his
analysis to areas of social science taking an antifoundationalist stance, that term is not used here.
2. I emphasise that my paper is not intended as a critique of Beattie’s and merely takes it as a
starting point for a different sort of analysis. Beattie’s commentary emphasises the
interconnections between threads rather than their separate identity, so to better indicate the
alignment between her commentary and the sections of this paper, references are given to her
individual paragraphs, where appropriate.
3. Google Scholar accessed 14 April 2016. Total citations: 162, of which 57 are themselves uncited, 8
are not in English, 7 are not in the discipline of accounting, 6 are items of secondary literature, 5
are untraceable or inaccessible and 2 are duplicates.
4. One study (Chariri, 2011, p. 63) actually challenges the self-serving hypothesis itself, offering
evidence of “a balance in arguments in regard to [. . .] historical performance”, but as this is
drawn from a case study of a single company (in the Indonesian insurance sector) and uses as
evidence selective quotations from the report and testimony from the company’s own managers,
the impact of this apparently strongly negative modularity is open to some question.
5. Beattie (2014) cites the former.
6. Google Scholar accessed 25 October 2013. Total citations: 292, of which 166 are themselves uncited, 22
are not in English, 10 are untraceable or inaccessible and 5 are items of secondary literature. Note that
the date of the trawl in this case is somewhat earlier than for the other root sources.
7. Of the 38 studies, 22 use a disclosure index, 15 thematic (topic) analysis alone, and one subjective
rating.
MEDAR 8. The issues are risk (6), intellectual capital (4), impact of IFRS adoption (2) and human capital (1).
26,1
9. Google Scholar accessed 27 April 2016. Total citations: 59, of which 27 are themselves uncited, 6
are items of secondary literature and 2 are not in the discipline of accounting. The reference
group includes 7 works with Davison as sole or joint author.
10. Davison also examines visual repetition, for example BT’s use within any one annual report of
34 several pictures of telephones.
11. The example is counted as similar repetition because the text and photograph refer in different
ways to the same topic, but for some reason the fact that the photograph includes no fewer than
33 scholarship holders is not offered as a case of multiple repetition.
12. Google Scholar accessed 12 April 2016. Total citations: 92, of which 37 are not themselves cited, 4
are not in English, 3 are not in the discipline of accounting, 3 are items of secondary literature, 3
are untraceable or otherwise inaccessible and 1 is a duplicate.

13. Google Scholar accessed 7 April 2016. Total citations: 119, of which 41 are not themselves cited,
21 are not in the discipline of accounting, 5 are duplicates, 2 are not in English, 2 are items of
secondary literature and 1 is untraceable or otherwise inaccessible.
14. Google Scholar accessed 30 April 2016. Total citations: 53, of which 31 are not themselves cited, 3
are not in English and 2 are to items of secondary literature.
15. Google Scholar accessed 23 March 2016. Total citations: 85, of which 40 are not themselves cited,
5 are not in English, 4 are duplicates, 4 are items of secondary literature, 2 are untraceable or
otherwise inaccessible, 1 is not in the discipline of accounting and 1 includes the root source in
the reference list but does not cite it in the text.
16. Google Scholar accessed 4 April 2015. Total citations: 140, of which 53 are not themselves cited,
15 are not in the discipline of accounting, 7 are untraceable or otherwise inaccessible, 6 are items
of secondary literature, 2 are not in English and 2 are duplicates.
17. Two studies appear under two categories in this analysis.
18. As Milne et al. (2009, note 7) themselves point out different forms of discourse analysis are not
necessarily compatible with each other.
19. For other examples of research trails apparently running cold rather quickly, see
Merkl-Davies and Brennan‘s (2007, Table 2) survey of disclosure strategies in corporate
narratives: this classifies studies according to seven strategies, two perspectives (preparer
versus user) and two foci (impression management versus incremental information).
Disregarding the strategy of reading ease manipulation (obfuscation), which attracted a
great deal of attention, there are 16 non-empty categories, of which only two contain more
than four studies, four contain only one and four only two, an average of 2.75 studies per
category. Taking each category to be a potential seam of research, the first study to open up
the seam attracted, on average, fewer than two others. Li’s (2010) survey of textual analyses
of accounting narratives using large-sample statistical studies includes a table (p. 148)
mapping a sample of studies intended to “help categorise the literature” (p. 147). It contains
three columns for independent variables and seven rows for dependent variables: only two of
the resulting 21 cells contain more than two studies.
References
Aerts, W. (1994), “On the use of accounting logic as an explanatory category in narrative accounting
disclosures”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 Nos 4/5, pp. 337-353.
Aerts, W. (2001), “Inertia in the attributional content of annual accounting narratives”, European
Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-32.
Aerts, W. (2005), “Picking up the pieces: impression management in the retrospective attributional framing Narrative
of accounting outcomes”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 493-517.
accounting
Aerts, W. and Cheng, P. (2011), “Causal disclosures on earnings and earnings management in an IPO
setting”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 431-459.
research
Aerts, W. and Tarca, A. (2010), “Financial performance explanations and institutional setting”,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 421-450.
Aerts, W. and Tarca, A. (2014), “Do attributes of management’s explanations of financial performance
matter for analysts? An international perspective”, in Di Pietra, R., Mcleay, S. and Ronen, J.
35
(Eds), Accounting and Regulation, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 311-338.
Aerts, W. and Theunisse, H. (2001), “Listing status of the firm as motivational factor for attributional
search in annual reporting”, Brussels Economic Review, Vol. 17 No. 171, pp. 91-127.
Aerts, W., Cheng, P. and Tarca, A. (2013), “Management’s earnings justification and earnings
management under different institutional regimes”, Corporate Governance: An International

Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 93-115.
Armitage, S. and Marston, C. (2008), “Corporate disclosure, cost of capital and reputation: evidence from
finance directors”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 314-336.
Athanasakou, V. and Hussainey, K. (2014), “The perceived credibility of forward-looking performance
disclosures”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 227-259.
\Barker, R., Hendry, J., Roberts, J. and Sanderson, P. (2012), “Can company-fund manager
meetings convey informational benefits? Exploring the rationalisation of equity
investment decision making by UK fund managers”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 207-222.
Barnett, G.A., Huh, C., Kim, Y. and Park, H.W. (2011), “Citations among communication journals and
other disciplines: a network analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 449-469.
Baudrillard, J. (1977), Oublier Foucault, Galilée, Paris.
Beattie, V. (2014), “Accounting narratives and the narrative turn in accounting research: issues, theory,
methodology, methods and a research framework”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 111-134.
Beattie, V. and Davison, J. (2013), “Special issue call for papers: accounting narratives: quantification,
storytelling and sensemaking”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 160-161.
Beattie, V. and Davison, J. (2015), “Editorial: accounting narratives: storytelling, philosophising and
quantification”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 45 Nos 6/7, pp. 655-660.
Beattie, V. and Smith, S.J. (2012), “Evaluating disclosure theory using the views of UK finance directors
in the intellectual Capital context”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 471-494.
Beattie, V., McInnes, B. and Fearnley, S. (2002), Through the Eyes of Management: A Study of Narrative
Disclosures, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, London.
Beattie, V., McInnes, W. and Fearnley, S. (2004a), “A methodology for analysing and evaluating
narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure
quality attributes”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 205-236.
Beattie, V., McInnes, W. and Fearnley, S. (2004b), Through the Eyes of Management: Narrative
Reporting across Three Sectors, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales,
London.
Benckendorff, P. and Zehrer, A. (2013), “A network analysis of tourism research”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 121-149.
Bettman, J.R. and Weitz, B.A. (1983), “Attribution in the board room: causal reasoning in corporate
annual reports”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 165-183.
Bik, O.P.G. (2010), The Behaviour of Assurance Professionals: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Eburon,
Delft.
MEDAR Brennan, N.M. (2005), “Review of Beattie, V., McInnes, W. and Fearnley, S.,Tthrough the Eyes of
Management: Narrative Reporting across Three Sectors, Institute of Chartered Accountants in
26,1 England and Wales, London, 2004, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 287-88.
Broberg, P., Tagesson, T. and Collin, S.-O. (2010), “What explains variation in voluntary disclosure? a
study of the annual reports of corporations listed on the Stockholm stock exchange”, Journal of
Management & Governance, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 351-377.
Chahine, S. and Filatotchev, I. (2011), “The effects of corporate governance and audit and non-audit fees
36 on IPO value”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 155-172.
Chan, M.C., Watson, J. and Woodliff, D. (2014), “Corporate governance quality and CSR disclosures”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 1, pp. 59-73.
Chariri, A. (2011), “Rhetorics in financial reporting: an interpretive case study”, Jurnal Akuntansi Dan
Keuangan, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 53-70.
Chelli, M. and Gendron, Y. (2013), “Sustainability ratings and the disciplinary power of the ideology of
numbers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 187-203.
Chen, L., Danbolt, J. and Holland, J. (2014), “Rethinking bank business models: the role of intangibles”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 563-589.
Cho, C.H., Roberts, R.W. and Patten, D.M. (2010), “The language of US corporate environmental
disclosure”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 431-443.
Collis, J. (2012), “Determinants of voluntary audit and voluntary full accounts in micro- and non-micro
small companies in the UK”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 441-468.
Contrafatto, M. and Burns, J. (2013), “Social and environmental accounting, organisational change and
management accounting: a processual view”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 349-365.
Correa, C. and Laine, M. (2013), “Struggling against like-minded conformity in order to enliven SEAR: a
call for passion”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 134-144.
Craig, R., Mortensen, T. and Iyer, S. (2013), “Exploring top management language for signals of
possible deception: the words of Satyam’s chair Ramalinga Raju”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 333-347.
Craig, R.J. and Brennan, A.M. (2012), “An exploration of the relationship between language choice
in CEO letters to shareholders and corporate reputation”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 166-177.
Davison, J. (2008), “Rhetoric, repetition, reporting and the ‘dot.com’ era: words, pictures, intangibles”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 791-826.
Davison, J. (2014), “Visual rhetoric and the case of intellectual Capital”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 20-37.
Deloitte (2016), A Clear Vision: Annual Report Insights 2016, Deloitte, London.
Demos, N. and Marston, C. (2010), “Firm visibility via group presentations”, International Journal of
Managerial and Financial Accounting, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 63-94.
Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2012), The Future of Narrative Reporting: The
Government Response, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, London.
Eshraghi, A. and Taffler, R. (2015), “Heroes and victims: fund manager sensemaking, self-legitimation
and storytelling”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 45 Nos 6/7, pp. 691-714.
Fieseler, C. (2011), “On the corporate social responsibility perceptions of equity analysts”, Business
Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 131-147.
Financial Reporting Council (2013), Exposure Draft: Guidance on the Strategic Report, FRC, London.
Gendron, Y. and Baker, C.R. (2005), “On interdisciplinary movements: the development of a network of
support around foucaultian perspectives in accounting research”, European Accounting Review,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 525-569.
Gibbins, M., Richardson, A. and Waterhouse, J. (1990), “The management of corporate financial Narrative
disclosure: opportunism, ritualism, policies, and processes”, Journal of Accounting Research,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 121-143.
accounting
Gray, R., Brennan, A. and Malpas, J. (2014), “New accounts: towards a reframing of social accounting”,
research
Accounting Forum, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 258-273.
Halim, H.A. and Jafaar, H. (2012), “Intangibles disclosure and Capital-raising in Australia: an analysis
of information intensity”, Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 69-91. 37
Higgins, C. and Walker, R. (2012), “Ethos, logos, pathos: strategies of persuasion in social/
environmental reports”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 194-208.
Holland, J. (2005), “A grounded theory of corporate disclosure”, Accounting and Business
Holland, J. (2006), “Corporate disclosure, learning and the management of expectations”, Departmental
Working Paper, Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
Holland, J. (2009), “Looking behind the veil’: invisible corporate intangibles, stories, structure and the
contextual information content of disclosure”, Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 152-187.
Holland, J. (2016), “A behavioural theory of the fund management firm”, The European Journal of
Finance, Vol. 22 No. 11, pp. 1004-1039.
Holland, J., Henningsson, J., Johanson, U., Koga, C. and Sakakibara, S. (2012), “Use of IC information in
japanese financial firms”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 562-581.
Hooghiemstra, R. (2003), The Construction of Reality: Cultural Differences in Self-Serving Behaviour in
Accounting Narratives, Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Rotterdam.
Hooghiemstra, R. (2012), “What determines the informativeness of firms’ explanations for deviations
from the dutch corporate governance code?”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 1-27.
Hopper, T., Ashraf, J., Uddin, S. and Wickramasinghe, D. (2015), “Social theorisation of accounting:
challenges to positive research”, in Jones, S. (Ed.), Routledge Companion to Financial Accounting
Theory, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 452-4–71.
Huang, C.C., Luther, R., Tayles, M. and Haniffa, R. (2013), “Human Capital disclosures in developing
countries: figureheads and value creators”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 180-196.
International Integrated Reporting Council (2013), International Integrated Reporting Framework,
International Integrated Reporting Council, London.
Iu, J. and Clowes, C. (2001), “An approach to evaluating accounting narratives: a corporate social
responsibility perspective”, Departmental Working Paper, Accounting Department, Deakin
University, Burwood, Victoria.
Iu, J. and Clowes, C. (2004), “Evaluating a measure of content quality for accounting narratives (with an
empirical application to narratives from Australia, Hong Kong, and the United States)”, Paper
presented at the Fourth Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference,
4-6 July, Singapore.
Jetty, J. and Beattie, V.A. (2008), “Factors influencing narrative disclosure by large UK charities:
interview evidence”, Departmental Working Paper, Department of Accounting and Finance,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
Joannidès, V. and Berland, N. (2013), “Constructing a research network: accounting knowledge in
production”, accounting”, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 512-538.
Jones, M.J. (2010), “Accounting for the environment: towards a theoretical perspective for
environmental accounting and reporting”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
MEDAR Kimbrough, M.D. and Wang, I.Y. (2014), “Are seemingly self-serving attributions in earnings press
releases plausible? empirical evidence”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 635-667.
26,1
Kosaiyakanont, A. (2011), “The influence of corporate disclosure on investor confidence in Thai listed
companies”, Doctoral thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton.
Laohapolwatana, W.T., Smith, M. and Howieson, B. (2005), “The impact of voluntary disclosures on
sell-side analyst stock recommendations: Australian evidence”, School of Accounting, Finance
38 and Economics & FIMARC Working Paper Series, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup.
Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lawrence, S.R., Botes, V., Collins, E. and Roper, J. (2013), “Does accounting construct the identity of
firms as purely self-interested or as socially responsible?”, Meditari Accountancy Research,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 144-160.
Lennon, N.J. (2013), “Accounting qualities in practice: rhizomatic stories of representational

faithfulness, decision making and control”, Doctoral thesis, Copenhagen Business School,
Copenhagen.
Leong, S., Hazelton, J., Taplin, R., Timms, W. and Laurence, D. (2014), “Mine site-level water
reporting in the Macquarie and Lachlan catchments: a study of voluntary and mandatory
disclosures and their value for community decision-making”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 94-106.
Li, F. (2010), “Textual analysis of corporate disclosure: a survey of the literature”, Journal of Accounting
Literature, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 143-165.
Locke, K.D. (2001), Grounded Theory in Management Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lodh, S.C. and Gaffikin, M.J.R. (1997), “Critical studies in accounting research, rationality and habermas: a
methodological reflection”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 433-474.
Lowe, A. (2001), “After ANT – an illustrative discussion of the implications for qualitative accounting
case research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 327-351.
Lowe, A. (2004), “Methodology choices and the construction of facts: some implications from the
sociology of scientific knowledge”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 207-231.
Luukkonen, T. (1997), “Why has latour’s theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric
community? discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis”, Scientometrics,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 27-37.
Macintosh, N.B. (2002), Accounting, Accountants and Accountability: Poststructuralist Positions,
Routledge, London.
Mäkelä, H. and Laine, M. (2011), “A CEO with many messages: comparing the ideological
representations provided by different corporate reports”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 217-231.
Malsch, B., Gendron, Y. and Grazzini, F. (2011), “Investigating interdisciplinary translations: the
influence of pierre bourdieu on accounting literature”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 194-228.
Maroun, W. and van Zijl, W. (2016), “Isomorphism and resistance in implementing IFRS 10 and IFRS 12”,
The British Accounting Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 220-239.
Mayorga, D. (2013), “Managing continuous disclosure: Australian evidence”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1135-1169.
Melloni, G. (2015), “Intellectual Capital disclosure in integrated reporting: an impression management
analysis”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 661-680.
Melloni, G., Stacchezzini, R. and Lai, A. (2016), “The tone of business model disclosure: an impression
management analysis of the integrated reports”, Journal of Management & Governance, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 295-320.
Merkl-Davies, D.M. and Brennan, N. (2005), “A new methodology to measure impression management: Narrative
a linguistic approach to reading difficulty”, Paper presented at the European Accounting
Association conference, 18-20 May, Goteborg.
accounting
Merkl-Davies, D.M. and Brennan, N.M. (2007), “Discretionary disclosure strategies in corporate
research
narratives: incremental information or impression management?”, Journal of Accounting
Literature, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 116-194.
Merkl-Davies, D.M. and Brennan, N.M. (2011), “A conceptual framework of impression management:
new insights from psychology, sociology and critical perspectives”, Accounting and Business 39
Milne, M.J., Grubnic, S., Solomon, J.F., Solomon, A., Norton, S.D. and Joseph, N.L. (2011), “Private
climate change reporting: an emerging discourse of risk and opportunity?”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1119-1148.
Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H. and Walton, S. (2009), “Words not actions! the ideological role of
sustainable development reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,

Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1211-1257.
Moizer, P. (2009), “Publishing in accounting journals: a fair game?”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 285-304.
Mundy, J., Levant, Y., de La Villarmois, O. and Cavélius, F. (2011), “Opening the ‘black box’: how
internal reporting systems contribute to the quality of financial disclosure”, Journal of Applied
Accounting Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 187-211.
Nakao, Y., Nishitani, K. and Kokubu, K. (2013), “Determinants of narrative content of sustainability
reporting by Japanese companies”, Paper presented at the Seventh Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary
Research in Accounting Conference, Kobe.
Oakes, H. and Oakes, S. (2012), “Accounting and marketing communications in arts engagement: a
discourse analysis”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 209-222.
Patelli, L. and Pedrini, M. (2014), “Is the optimism in CEO’s letters to shareholders sincere? impression
management versus communicative action during the economic crisis”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Patelli, L. and Pedrini, M. (2015), “Is tone at the top associated with financial reporting
aggressiveness?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
Pesci, C., Costa, E. and Soobaroyen, T. (2015), “The forms of repetition in social and environmental
reports: insights from hume’s notion of ‘impressions”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 45
Nos 6/7, pp. 765-800.
Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. (1984), “The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology
of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other”, Social Studies of Science,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 388-441.
Racevskis, K. (1979), “The theoretical violence of a catstrophical strategy”, Diacritics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 33-42.
Ralph, N., Birks, M. and Chapman, Y. (2015), “The methodological dynamism of grounded theory”,
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 1-6.
Ramassa, P. (2010), “Towards a systemic approach in financial communication research: evidence from
exploratory case studies”, Paper presented at the 33rd European Accounting Association
Congress, 19-21 May, Istanbul.
Ritzer, G. and Goodman, D.J. (2004), Sociological Theory, 6th ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Ritzer, G. and Stepnisky, J. (2014), Sociological Theory, 9th ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Schleicher, T. and Walker, M. (2010), “Bias in the tone of forward-looking narratives”, Accounting and
Business Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 371-390.
Shapin, S. (1995), “Here and everywhere: sociology of scientific knowledge”, Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 289-321.
MEDAR Shwed, U. and Bearman, P.S. (2010), “The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 817-840.
26,1
Small, H. (2006), “Tracking and predicting growth areas in science”, Scientometrics, Vol. 68 No. 3,
pp. 595-610.
Staw, B.M., McKechnie, P.I. and Puffer, S. (1983), “The justification of organisational performance”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 582-600.
40 Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sydserff, R. and Weetman, P. (1999), “A texture index for evaluating accounting narratives: an
alternative to readability formulas”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 459-488.
Sydserff, R. and Weetman, P. (2002), “Developments in content analysis: a transitivity index and
DICTION scores”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 523-545.
Thompson, J.B. (1984), Studies in the Theory of Ideology, Polity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Thompson, J.B. (1990), Ideology and Modern Culture, Stanford Univerity Press, Stanford, CA.
Tinker, T. (2005), “The withering of criticism: a review of professional, foucauldian, ethnographic, and
epistemic studies in accounting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 100-135.
Torres, L., Pina, V. and Yetano, A. (2011), “Performance measurement in Spanish local governments: a
cross-case comparison study”, Public Administration, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 1081-1109.
Tregidga, H., Kearins, K. and Milne, M. (2013), “The politics of knowing ‘organizational sustainable
development”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 102-129.
Tregidga, H., Milne, M. and Kearins, K. (2010), “Organisational legitimacy and social and
environmental reporting research: the potential of discourse analysis”, Departmental Working
Paper, University of Canterbury, Canterbury.
Tregidga, H., Milne, M. and Kearins, K. (2014), “(Re)presenting ‘sustainable organizations”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 477-494.
Tregidga, H., Milne, M. and Lehman, G. (2012), “Analyzing the quality, meaning and accountability of
organizational reporting and communication: directions for future research”, Accounting Forum,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 223-230.
Verriest, A., Gaeremynck, A. and Thornton, D.B. (2013), “The impact of corporate governance on IFRS
adoption choices”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-77.
Vogel, R. (2012), “The visible colleges of management and organization studies: a bibliometric analysis
of academic journals”, Organization Studies, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1015-1043.
Wang, Y. and Bowers, A.J. (2016), “Mapping the field of educational administration research: a journal
citation network analysis of the discipline”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 242-269.
Wee, M., Tarca, A. and Chang, M. (2014), “Disclosure incentives, mandatory standards and firm
communication in the IFRS adoption setting”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 265-291.
Zhang, X. (2008), “Culture emergence in international cross-cultural management contexts: the different
roles of values, expectations, and contingencies”, Doctoral thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Corresponding author
Brian A. Rutherford can be contacted at: b.a.rutherford@kent.ac.uk
Citations
Application Findings
Itema Pb Cc Subjectd Methodologye No. Subject contested?f contested?g
Armitage and Marston A E CD Interviews 1 Question design No – Per NA Appendix

(2008)
Athanasakou and A E Credibility of SM 1 Findings No No – provides
Hussainey (2014) forward-looking context for
CD interpretation
Barker et al. (2012) A T Analyst meetings Interviews/ 1 Findings No No - background
Observations
Beattie and Smith A E FD’s beliefs re Questionnaires/ 2 As a previous No – collateral No – too general/
(2012) disclosure statistical testing study; Findings Collateral
decisions
Bik (2010) B E Behaviour of GT 1 Use of grounded No – not CD NA
auditors theory
Broberg et al. (2010) A E CD SM 6 Findings No No – used as input
Chahine and A E Governance issues SM 1 Findings No No – used as input
Filatotchev (2011) and IPO value
Chen et al. (2014)* A T Bank business GT 2 Findings No – not CD No – collateral
models re
intangibles
Collis (2012) A E Audit and SM 1 As a previous No – collateral NA
reporting regime study but not
decisions comparable
Demos and Marston A E Group GT 1 Use of grounded No – ST No
(2010) presentations to theory
analysts
Eshraghi and Taffler A T Work of fund Gabriel’s story 1 Example of No No – collateral
(2015) managers typology previous literature
Fieseler (2011) A E Users’ attitudes to GT 1 Findings No – ST No – collateral
CD
Holland (2006)* D T CD GT 15 Study builds on No No
root article using
same data
Holland (2009)* A T CD GT 12 Builds on root No No
article
Holland et al. (2012)* A E Case studies 1 Findings No No – background
(continued)
of Holland (2005)
Table AI.
research
Narrative
accounting
Analysis of citations
41
42
26,1
Table AI.
MEDAR
Citations
a b c d e
Item P C Subject Methodology No. Subject contested?f contested?g
Use of intellectual
capital information
Holland (2016)* A T Behaviour of fund GT 2 As a previous No – not CD No – collateral
management firms study; findings
Hooghiemstra (2012) A E Disclosure of Content analysis/ 3 Findings (2); No – collateral No – used as input
reasons for statistical testing contrast approach
governance code to current study
departures
Huang et al. (2013) A E Human capital Interviews/content 1 As a previous No – collateral No
disclosures analysis study
Jetty and Beattie (2008) D T Disclosure by GT 1 Example of No – different No
charities grounded theory context
and findings
Kosailyakanont (2011) T T Effect of disclosure GT/SM 1 Guidance on No – ST No
on confidence interview design
Maroun and van Zijl A T Implementation of Di Maggio & 2 Research design; No No
(2016) FRS Powell’s model of approach is
isomorphic change consistent with
root article
Mayorga (2013) A T Continuous GT 6 Example of GT; Limited – see next Limited –
disclosure findings as a column refinement
obligations of previous study; identifies new
Australian specific findings factors for a new
companies (2); study findings context
are consistent with
root article; study
refines root article
Mundy et al. (2011) A E CD SM 2 Findings No No – used as input
and results
consistent
Ramassa (2010) C T CD Information theory 1 No – collateral No
(continued)
Citations
Itema Pb Cc Subjectd Methodologye No. Subject contested?f contested?g
As a previous
study but not
comparable
Torres et al. (2011) A E Public sector Comparative case 1 Example of an No – collateral NA
performance study alternative
measurement approach
Verriest et al. (2013) A E CD SM 1 Findings No No – used as input
Wee et al. (2014) A E Disclosure of IFRS SM 2 Findings No No – background
adoption
Zhang (2008) T T Culture in GT 1 Example of No – not CD No
international grounded theory
management
Notes: aAsterisk indicates author in common with root article. bP = Publication type: A = article in a scholarly journal; B = book; C = conference
paper; D = departmental working paper; T = thesis. cContent type: E = empirical; T = theory and empirical. dCD = corporate disclosure. eInterviews,
observations and questionnaires are broadly neo-positivist, i.e. no previous theoretical framing; GT = grounded theory; SM = statistical modelling.
f
CD = corporate disclosure; Per = peripheral; ST = specific topic. gNA = not applicable
Table AI.
research
Narrative
accounting
43

Narrative Accounting Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narrative Accounting Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meditari Accountancy Research

Narrating the narrative turn in narrative accounting research:: Scholarly

Permanent link to this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Scholarly knowledge development or

attention from its developmental path.

Fabricating scientiﬁc knowledge

from the community of researchers it undergoes translation as the knowledge-builders, and

Fabricating social scientiﬁc knowledge

where the literature adopts an antifoundationalist stance, and to do so by means of citation

Applying the model

Fortunately, an alternative is available as we can draw on the report of an expert

employs it to grapple with the signiﬁcance of the accounting system as a whole:

Story-telling and sense-making

the natural environment.

group outside the broadly deﬁned area of corporate disclosure.

Zijl (2015, p. 13) consistent with the approach of

The ﬂat science of the narrative turn

to be limited to “good” news [Milne et al., characteristics

research paradigms and methodologies and focused on exemplary studies supported by

Implications for research

are untraceable or otherwise inaccessible and 1 is a duplicate.

management under different institutional regimes”, Corporate Governance: An International

Lennon, N.J. (2013), “Accounting qualities in practice: rhizomatic stories of representational

sustainable development reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,

Armitage and Marston A E CD Interviews 1 Question design No – Per NA Appendix

You might also like