The future of interpretive accounting research—A polyphonic debate

In 1997-99 the three of us organised a series of European Commission funded conferences aimed at building a network of young researchers in the area of accounting. At the time “young” was defined by the Commission as researchers under 35 years of age (allowing for maternity leave or national service). Over the intervening years our network had grown and we wanted to try and take stock of the field in which we had now been working for a surprising number of years. To that Page 1 of 29 Accepted Manuscript 2 end we put together the above email and a broad invitation list of people who had been at those first meetings, and others of the same generation (or even younger) whom we had met since. About half of those originally contacted managed to make the meeting where we spent a stimulating couple of hours of debate on the topics raised below—so stimulating that we developed a collective desire to leave a trace of the discussion. Writing a traditional paper with so many, so widely dispersed authors was not going to work. Instead we came up with a different form of collective writing that mirrored the original debate, and that might contribute to ongoing debates in this journal concerning the nature and status of our research (e.g. Arrington, 2004; Inanga & Schneider, 2005; Macintosh, 2004). We agreed a process in which each of us in turn would have one week to add a target of 300 words to a rolling document, going through the contributors alphabetically. After two rounds we would see what we had got…