Research philosophy and approach

Research philosophies relate to the development of knowledge and the nature of knowledge and therefore embody significant assumptions about how researchers view the world (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007). Burrell and Morgan (1979) confirm that social scientists differ in their approaches to research, their questions, and their methods of collecting, analysing and interpreting data because their views on, or stances they take about, ontology, epistemology and human nature differ. For the novice researcher in accounting or other social sciences, additional sources of difference arise as they grapple with appreciating the range of views, and so approaches, that are possible and crafting an approach that suits the topic of the research, in this case social, environmental and sustainability accounting.

20

According to Hyde (2000), in the acquisition of new knowledge in research, two main approaches used are deductive and inductive. Positivists associate themselves with deductive research, which is mainly based on quantitative methods, whereas interpretivists associate themselves with inductive research, predominantly based on qualitative methods (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Creswell & Clark, 2007). Strauss and Corbin (1998) define qualitative research as “any type of research that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (pp. 10-11). Creswell (2007) also explains that“Qualitative research begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theoretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problems”(p. 21).In contrast, a deductive research approach starts with an established theory and, by testing hypotheses empirically, seeks to verify if the theory is generalisable or applicable to other specific instances. Quantitative approaches therefore collect so-called objective, quantifiable data that explain causal relationships between concepts and make generalisations about the population (Chua, 1986; Smith, 2017; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Even though quantitative methods enhance the generalisation and the diffusion of produced knowledge through the use of valid and reliable measurement methods (Churchill, 1979), they lack the ability to render detailed explanations for meanings and processes involved (Creswell, Hanson, Clark Plano & Morales, 2007).

My study responds to recent calls in the accounting literature for more insights into the role of accounting and control in the sustainable development practices of corporate organisations (Arjaliès & Mundy, 2013; Gond et al., 2012; Albelda Pérez, Correa Ruiz & Carrasco Fenech, 2007; Lodhia & Hess, 2014; Schaltegger & Burritt, 2010). One of the aims of this thesis is to explore how accounting is perceived to be used and the role of the accountant in sustainability practices and sustainability performance.

21

As mentioned in chapter 1, my study applies notions associated with stakeholder theory, in particular that, like any company, Gold Fields has a variety of stakeholders and it is likely that they have different opinions about sustainable development practices and how accounting contributes to such practices. More to the point, I use a stakeholder theoretical lens to examine the perceptions of people associated with the company at its Damang operations about sustainable development initiatives and the role of accounting in sustainability. Stakeholder theory proposes that companies create externalities, which affect a broad range of stakeholders (Freeman & Reed, 1983). According to stakeholder theory “managers are not responsible only for maximizing shareholder value (while acting within the limits of the law) as shareholder agency theory provides, but also for taking into account the wellbeing of other parties affected by corporate decisions” (Cragg & Greenbaum, 2012, p. 319). How stakeholders are defined has consequences since it affects who and what counts (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997). This clarification of my theoretical lens is important because theories pervade any research study, as Parker (2014) argues: theories in qualitative research recognise accounting as constructing organisational reality rather than reflecting some independently pre-existing external objective reality. Hence, the argument that theory and theoretical insights both inform empirical data collection and analysis and emerge from the process of qualitative data analysis.

These research objectives informed my choice of research philosophy and strategy, and why I chose qualitative methods for my study. By the time I ventured into the field to collect data, my ontological belief, in addressing the research questions, was aligned to the idea that “the social world external to individual cognition is made up of nothing more than names, concepts and labels which are used to structure reality” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 4). Thus, as foreshadowed in Chapter 1, the approach used in this study is based on the methodological view that the research and the researcher are inseparable, and so consistent with constructivism, as distinct from positivism (Creswell, 2017). As a social science, qualitative accounting

22

research explores how accounting influences everyday lives through understanding how accounting can have beneficial, and sometimes harmful effects (Baker & Hayes, 2004; Carnegie & Napier, 2010). Through understanding how accounting touches our everyday lives, we can appreciate how pivotal it is in serving the interests of businesses, other organisations and society at large (Parker, 2012). Thus, qualitative methods are more suitable than quantitative methods in situations like mine, where I want to understand how ideas claimed as being accounting affect sustainable development practices and to question the views commonly held on this matter by management, regulators, academics, employees and residents of communities close to the mines.

Thus, this study is an interpretive case study that gathers and examines data (Chua, 1986; Ryan et al., 2002; Scapens, 2004; Stringer, 2007) in order to ensure that “the final written report or presentation includes the voices of participants; the reflexivity of the researcher, and a complex description and interpretation of the problem, and it extends the literature or signals a call for action” (Creswell, 2007, p. 31). Based on my view on human nature, that human beings are totally “autonomous and free-willed” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 6) and creators of the phenomenon under study (Ryan, Scapens, & Theobold, 2002), I chose to take an interpretive approach to this study, meaning that I used a qualitative and grounded approach to data collection from the people and places mentioned above and in analysing and interpreting these data.

Gray and Milne (2015) note, particularly in relation to research in social, environmental and sustainability accounting, that “the criteria we choose are likely to depend, to a fair degree, upon the extent to which we address – and how we then answer – the broader question of ‘what are we for?’ ” (p. 52). I used an interpretive case study to gather and examine data (Chua, 1986; Ryan et al., 2002; Scapens, 2004; Stringer, 2007; Gray and Milne, 2015) on how accounting is

23

perceived to contribute to sustainability decision making of the Ghanaian Gold mining sector. This type of method has become increasingly common in the past three decades, and, indeed, is encouraged in accounting research to provide in-depth insights into organisations and their operating contexts (Lodhia & Hess, 2014). My approach is also in response to the idea that, while they may be useful to explain trends, commonalities and averages, quantitative methods lack the capacity that qualitative methods have to offer explanations for the meanings and the processes involved (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).