Critical and interpretive accounting, auditing and governance research in South Africa

The role of non-positivist research styles has been well documented by a number of leading accounting and auditing academics such as Humphrey (2008), Power (2003), and Fogarty et al (2006). In Europe in particular, high quality journals are dedicated to interpretive and critical research in the interest of promoting social change. In contrast, a simple archival analysis of the research published in South Africa's main accounting journals suggests that this country remains steadfast in its use of primarily quantitative methods for studying accounting, auditing, and other governance systems. Whether because of the time required to carry out qualitative studies, the inherent limitations of interpretive research, or an assumption that sophisticated statistical analysis is synonymous with high quality research, the end result is that there is very little critical and interpretive research in South Africa. To address this shortcoming, more needs to be done to highlight the invaluable contribution of 'alternate research' styles. In particular, local journals need to acknowledge the need for methodological and theoretical eclecticism in South African accounting, auditing and accountability research.