STAYING TRUE TO CONTEXT
AbstractThis essay develops the argument that the wind of “internationalization” threatens the contextuality and meaningfulness of qualitative accounting research, especially when internationalization implies researchers from non-anglophone institutions considering or being required to publish their work in highly ranked, English-speaking journals. I maintain that the threats of internationalization operate through three de-contextualization processes – linguistic, cultural, and epistemological. Qualitative researchers may wish to be careful before jumping on the internationalization bandwagon as internationalization carries a significant risk – that of downplaying or marginalizing certain ways of speaking, thinking, investigating, and writing. Ultimately, I make several tentative suggestions that might help to keep internationalization under surveillance and, perhaps, mitigate its negative effects on the contextuality of qualitative research endeavors.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lots its way? Ideas for more
imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128-152.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2014). Habitat and habitus: Boxed-in versus box-breaking
research. Organization Studies, 35(7), 967-987.
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2016). (Un)conditional surrender? Why do professionals
willingly comply with managerialism. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2019). Neo-institutional theory and organization studies: A mid-
life crisis? Organization Studies, 40(2), 199-218.
Andrew, J., Cooper, C., & Gendron, Y. (2020). Addressing the English language hegemony
problem in academia: An ongoing experiment and preliminary policy. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting.
Annisette, M., Cooper, C., & Gendron, Y. (2018). The question of diversity in “top”
accounting journals. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 51, 1-3.
Armstrong, P. (1994). The influence of Michel Foucault on accounting research. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 5(1), 25-55.
Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th
edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2017). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the
Academy. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Beverungen, A., Böhm, S., & Land, C. (2012). The poverty of journal publishing.
Organization, 19(6), 929-938.
Burgess, T. F., & Shaw, N. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of management and
business journals: A social network analysis study of the Financial Times 40. British
Journal of Management, 21(3), 627-648.
Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science (4 th edition)? Indianapolis, IN:
Hackett Publishing Company.
Chiapello, È., & Baker, C. R. (2011). The introduction of French theory into English language
accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(2), 140-160.
Chua, W. F. (2019). Radical developments in accounting thought? Reflections on positivism,
the impact of rankings and research diversity. Behavioral Research in Accounting,
Cooper, D. J., & Morgan, W. (2008). Case study research in accounting. Accounting
Horizons, 22(2), 159-178.
Dai, N.T., Free, C., & Gendron, Y. (2019). Interview-based research in accounting 2000-
: Informal norms, translation and vibrancy. Management Accounting Research, 42,
Delbridge, R., Suddaby, R., & Harley, B. (2016). Introducing JMSSays. Journal of
Management Studies, 53(2), 238-243.
Evans, L. (2018). Language, translation and accounting: Towards a critical research agenda.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(7), 1844-1873.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London, England: Sage
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can
succeed again. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gabriel, Y. (2010). Organization studies: A space for ideas, identities and agonies.
Organization Studies, 31(6), 757-775.
Gabriel, Y. (2016). The essay as an engendered species: Should we care? Journal of
Management Studies, 53(2), 244-249.
Gendron, Y. (2008). Constituting the academic performer: The spectre of superficiality and
stagnation in academia. European Accounting Review, 17(1), 97-127.
Gendron, Y. (2013). (Re)penser la contribution à la recherche. Comptabilité – Contrôle –
Audit, 19(2), 135-155.
Gendron, Y. (2018). On the elusive nature of critical (accounting) research. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 50, 1-12.
Gendron, Y., & Baker, C. R. (2005). On interdisciplinary movements: The development of a
network of support around Foucaultian perspectives in accounting research. European
Accounting Review, 14(3), 525-569.
Gendron, Y., & Rodrigue, M. (in press). On the centrality of peripheral research and the
dangers of tight boundary gatekeeping. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.
Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (2007). Composing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Gómez-Villegas, M., & Larrinaga, C. (2019). A critical accounting project for Latin America?
Objects of knowledge or ways of knowing. Paper submitted to the 2019 Qualitative
Research and Critical Accounting (QRCA) Conference, Bogotá (Colombia).
Grey, C. (2010). Organizing studies: Publications, politics and polemic. Organization Studies,
Guénin-Paracini, H., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Auditors as modern pharmakoi: Legitimacy
paradoxes and the production of economic order. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Guénin-Paracini, H., Malsch, B., & Tremblay, M.-S. (2015). On the operational reality of
auditors’ independence: Lessons from the field. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory, 34(2), 201-236.
Hagège, C. (2012). Contre la pensée unique. Paris, France: Odile Jacob.
Hopwood, A. G. (1979). Editorial. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 4(3), 145-147.
Hopwood, A. G. (2007). Whither accounting research? The Accounting Review, 82(5), 1365-
Humphrey, C., & Gendron, Y. (2015). What is going on? The sustainability of accounting
academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 47-66.
Justesen, L, & Mouritsen, J. (2011). Effects of actor-network theory in accounting research.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(2), 161-193.
Karpik, L. (2011). What is the price of a scientific paper? In J. Beckert & P. Aspers (Eds.),
The worth of goods: Valuation and pricing in the economy (pp. 63–85). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Komori, N. (2015). Beneath the globalization paradox: Towards the sustainability of cultural
diversity in accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 141-156.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the
institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4/5), 349-
Lukka, K., & Kasanen, E. (1996). Is accounting a global or a local discipline? Evidence from
major research journals. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(7/8), 755-773.
Malsch, B., Gendron, Y., & Grazzini, F. (2011). Investigating interdisciplinary translations:
The influence of Pierre Bourdieu on accounting literature. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 24(2), 194-228.
Malsch, B., & Tessier, S. (2015). Journal ranking effects on junior academics: Identity
fragmentation and politicization. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 84-98.
Miller, P. & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1-31.
Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game? Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34(2), 285-304.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605-622.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). CASE tools as organizational change: Investigating incremental
land radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309-340.
Palys, T. (1992). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Toronto, ON:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Canada.
Parker, L. D., & Roffey, B. H. (1997). Back to the drawing board: Revisiting grounded theory
and the everyday accountant’s and manager’s reality. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 10(2), 212-247.
Parker, M. (2014). University, Ltd: Changing a business school. Organization, 21(2), 281-
Patriotta, G. (2017). Crafting papers for publication: Novelty and convention in academic
writing. Journal of Management Studies, 54(5), 747-759.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2 nd edition). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Pelger, C., & Grottke, M. (2015). What about the future of the academy? Some remarks on
the looming colonisation of doctoral education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26,
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Power, M., & Gendron, Y. (2015). Qualitative research in auditing: A methodological
roadmap. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(2), 147-165.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2010). Mind the GAB. The Linguist, 49(3), 18-19.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4),
Wedlin, L. (2006). Ranking business schools: Forming ﬁelds, identities and boundaries in
international management education. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 516-531.
Williams, P. F., & Rodgers, J. L. (1995). The Accounting Review and the production of
accounting knowledge. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6(3), 263-287.
Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and
the ABS list. Organization, 18(4), 429-442.
COPYRIGHT: The author retains, without restrictions, the rights to his work.
REUSE RIGHTS: The SCG Journal adopts the Creative Commons License, CC BY-NC, non-commercial attribution according to the Open Access Policy to knowledge adopted by the UFRJ Journal Portal. With this license it is allowed to access, download, copy, print, share, reuse, and distribute the articles, as long as it is for non-commercial use and with the citation of the source, giving due credit of authorship and mentioning the SCG Journal. In such cases, no permission is required from the authors or publishers.AUTHORS' DEPOSIT RIGHTS/SELF ARCHIVING: Authors are encouraged to archive the published version with the link to their article in the SCG Journal in institutional repositories.