Ironies of narrative accounting research and the case for professional accounting judgement in accounting scholarship

Purpose - This paper aims to advance the case for accounting scholars possessing substantial professional accounting expertise to use judgement drawing on that expertise (target-disciplinary judgement) as a major component of their research methodology. Design/methodology/approach - The paper addresses methodological issues drawing on the criteriological debate within the methodological literature, a review of the ironies of contemporary narrative accounting research, including professional firm research, and an analysis of epistemological congruence seeking analogous cases in mainstream social scientific research. Findings - The paper shows that, within a vocationally related subject like accounting, appropriately trained and qualified scholarly researchers have the opportunity to deploy their professional expertise to make expansive target-disciplinary judgements in ways that satisfy accepted social scientific methodological criteria and offer epistemological convergence comparable to that of mainstream approaches like insider anthropology and autoethnography. Research limitations/implications - Using target-disciplinary expertise to make expansive judgements provides scholars with a way of expanding the range of research questions they address, including resuming evaluative-descriptive surveys that can, among other things, examine the quality of disclosures holistically rather than in the highly atomistic way often adopted by academics at the moment. Social implications - The approach defended in this paper offers accounting scholars the opportunity to apply their particular skills to investigate questions likely to be of interest to preparers and users of financial statements, to explore issues of wider interest, such as the adequacy of environmental or social responsibility disclosures, and to test and augment professional firm findings. In so doing, scholars can go some way to remedying the gap between academic research and practice. Originality/value - Little attention has been given to the use of expansive, expert target-disciplinary judgement in the methodological literature.