In ‘Empirical Accounting Research Design, Ph.D. Students (Kinney 1986), William R. Kinney, Jr. expresses a view increasingly represented as an exclusive standard for non-accountable empirical research. In the same article, Kinney sets out the definition of research as it applies to accounting. We consider that both its standard for empirical research and its definition of research is far too narrow to apply to an area such as accounting, which is an area of social science research and a profession that must provide informed services to individuals and organizations and society in general. E” He adds that his approach is “generic” and that it “focuses attention on the essence of scientific accounting research” (pp. 338-339). The Kinney’s article is believed to fall short of what is needed for progress in both science and practice. In dealing with the issue of choosing “real-world problems,” n grappling with the issue of selecting “real-world problems,” Kinney (1986, p. 340) seems content with the following advice: “One thinks about or studies the problem, reads about seemingly similar problems in other areas or disciplines such as economics, psychology, organizational behavior or political science. “. Nothing is said about methods for obtaining access empirically to the problems being encountered in actual accounting practice. Therefore, evaluating and testing the usefulness of research that is addressed to problems of improving practice is not addressed at all. He adheres to the Fisherian prescription against “preliminary peeks” at the data before testing and hence fails to say anything about possibilities for using data in forming hypotheses. Even the systems approach” to control problems, as opened by developments in modern computer technology for use in scientific research, does not even appear in Kinney’s approach to empirical research in accounting4. This brings up methodological research as a scientific research activity extended to developing new methods for empirical research with possible further interactions between science and practice. Turning from improvements in science methodology to improvements in practice, the criticisms are even more severe. For instance, quoting Watts and Zimmerman, Kinney (1986, p. 339) announces that “The objective of accounting theory is to explain and predict accounting practice. This positive, the how-the-world-is approach is in contrast with the more traditional normative view that accounting “theory” is concerned with what accounting practises ought to be”. The theory is “substantive theory” as exemplified by variants and derivatives from the “rational man hypothesis” in economics. It is not “methodological theory” as represented (perhaps ironically in this case) in statistical inference methods developed by R. A. Fisher and his successors. Like others in the literature, Kinney fails to recognize the value of identifying problems from the world of practice as a needed part of research in accounting. Whether in empirical or non-empirical research, it must not only be recognized that accounting is a social science in which explanations and predictions of behavior are worthy objects of study and study, but it must also be recognized that this research forms part of the activities of a profession serving the needs of management and society.
In conclusion, we do not say that Kinney is wrong, but that he is too narrow (much too little) both in his prescriptions for empirical research in science and his characterization of research in general. A fortiori these prescriptions are too limited for research in accounting. The result of adhering to them is likely to limit progress in the science and the practice of accounting. As far as the preparation of Ph.D. students for research is concerned, we fear that the sort of education supplied in contemporary courses on “research methods” along lines like those suggested by Kinney is oriented toward too narrow a scientific range of research methods and points of view. As a result, the needs of science and the needs of the profession for progress in the knowledge that is supposed to inform and improve their practices are both being short-changed.