Get Inside the Situation

For the researcher it was necessary to get inside the situation for understanding it on its own terms. The site was the waste management service of a Local Authority in England. Entry to the site consisted of three phases.

Firstly, exploration of the Local Authority research site was through publicly available information including on websites of the Council itself, the Audit Commission (Regulatory body for Councils in England and Wales) and the Department for Communities and Local Government including its forerunners

115

(Central Government Whitehall Department responsible for Local Government administration). This allowed data collection on organisational and institutional aspects of the Local Authority, on broad political, social, economic and environmental issues surrounding the Local Government sector, and to familiarise the researcher specifically with organisational vocabulary including for accounting and state governance in that particular Local Authority.

Secondly, contact was made with Local Authority staff. This included the Chief Executive Officer, Senior Management Team and Finance Director. They provided a mini case study of the situation, arranged access to available data sources and obtained approval for access to staff for archival research, observation and interviews. This gave information on the role of management accounting and control, but also explained how it interweaved broader issues and particularly the challenge of state governance. These preliminary discussions resulted in the PhD research topic: „A Study of Management Accounting and Control in Governing the State: Some Lessons from a Local Government Waste Management Service‟.

Thirdly, the research got into the local contexts. This involved data collection from the Local Authority, and in particular on the meanings and interpretations of accounting and waste management. However, these meanings and interpretations were linked back to the broader organisational, institutional and social context.

116 3.3.2 Balancing the Roles of Expert and Learner

The approach to information sources and data collection affects methodological choices (Morgan 1983). From the ontological and epistemological position taken the research could not be undertaken as a distant observer separated from data and findings. Close engagement was necessary with the data and site. This required active involvement in knowledge construction.

In this instance the researcher had to balance the role of being a learner in knowledge construction with also being considered to be an expert. The researcher had a learner role whereby they were to be theoretically informed, but flexible enough to accept emerging field evidence (Ahrens and Chapman 2006). The researcher was also considered to be an expert on both accounting and the public sector. This is because the researcher was a qualified Chartered Public Finance Accountant and has held senior management positions in both Central Government and Local Government, including as Head of Finance and Resources. Furthermore the researcher has provided high level training and consultancy to government, non-profit, and business organisations from Europe, Asia and Africa. In knowledge construction the researcher was therefore practically informed but flexible enough to adapt as an action researcher with emerging field evidence even although on occasions this may contravene previous training, existing orthodoxy and contemporary mindsets (Kaplan 1998; Argyris 1998). The researcher therefore was both theoretically and practically informed but with flexibility to challenge orthodoxy through emerging field evidence.

117 3.3.3 The Role of A Priori Theory in Interpretive Research

The role of a priori theory and the researcher‟s mind set during data collection and the interview process are important to conduct quality interpretive research.

Interpretive research literature has highlighted the problems on the role of a priori theory (For example Eisenhardt 1989; Dyer and Wilkins 1991; Ahrens and Dent 1998; Ahrens and Chapman 2006), which affects a researcher‟s ability to see emerging patterns from the data without being limited consciously or subconsciously by preconceived notions, which for the researcher in this case were both theoretically informed and based on previous expert experience. Degrees of a priori theorising are found within the group of good interpretive research studies (Ahrens and Dent 1998). Ultimately, given a lack of rules on the level of desirable a priori theorising, the researcher decides on the degree of a priori theorising knowing it has to be a well thought decision consistent with the overall research strategy (Laughlin 1995).

The „middle-range thinking‟ is adopted for the „theory‟ and „methodology‟ (Laughlin 1995). This differentiates theories pertaining to the nature of empirical observations and methodology (see also Lukka 2005 for a similar distinction). As stated by Laughlin (1995), “On the “theory” dimension we can express the amalgam of concern in relation to the level of prior theorising and prior theories that can legitimately be brought to the empirical investigation”. He states that at the extreme of „high‟ theorising we find positivistic approaches and at the „low‟ end prior theories are perceived to be irrelevant to the “diversity and detail of the present

118

study”. About the „methodology‟ dimension, he argues that: “…the actual way of conducting the investigation can either be defined according to some theoretical model of how the observer should see or is more reliant on the implicit perceptual powers of the individual observer…”

From these dimensions, the PhD is situated in the middle of the a priori theorising continuums. Theory, and previous expert practitioner experience, provides focus for empirical inquiry but allows patterns to emerge from observations in action research (Kaplan 1998; Argyris 1998). As it is not possible to assimilate and process all information from the field, a priori knowledge on management accounting and control provides a certain attention and helps ensure not getting lost in the rich and complex site empirics.

Middle range theorising is supported by several interpretive researchers. Ahrens and Dent (1998) argue “no well-informed researchers can deny their theoretical training, nor would they want to, for theoretical sensitivity is essential to good field research”. Ahrens and Chapman (2006) also state that, “Doing qualitative field studies is not simply empirical but a profoundly theoretical activity. (…) With qualitative methodology goes an acknowledgement that the field is itself not just part of the empirical world but is shaped by the theoretical interests of the researcher”. At the same time, whilst being a practical expert is not essential to good field research, no researcher would want to deny such competencies. This is because such practical expert sensitivity can, rightly or wrongly, add to the credibility of the researcher in the eyes of respondents and also to the depth of insights that can be obtained, especially in action research (Kaplan 1998; Argyris 1998).

119

The study focuses on the interaction of meanings, actions and actors. A priori theorising on the existence of multiple rationalities and meanings provides a direction for entering the site and formulating research questions. However, this does not prevent openness to alternative ways of navigating through the site and revising research questions.