Scientific revolutions, progess and accounting research

Thomas Kuhn’s concept of a normal science paradigm has been utilised and criticised across a range of social science fields. However, Kuhn’s aim was to argue that science progresses not in an incremental manner but through a series of paradigms that need a revolution in thought to shift from one to the next. This paper addresses Kuhn’s work focusing on the totality of his model, but recognising the ambiguities concerning paradigm shifts that have led to charges of relativism. To address this weakness an argument is advanced for a political economy analysis of the publication process and the development of critical accounting research centred on human emancipation. The paper concludes with some suggested research agendas particularly relevant to the Irish context.

Changing Paradigms in Space Theories:Recapturing 20th Century Architectural History

The concept of space entered architectural history as late as 1893. Studies in art opened up the discussion, and it has been studied in various ways in architecture ever since. This article aims to instigate an additional reading to architectural history, one that is not supported by "isms" but based on space theories in the 20th century. Objectives of the article are to bring the concept of space and its changing paradigms to the attention of architectural researchers, to introduce a conceptual framework to classify and clarify theories of space, and to enrich the discussions on the 20th century architecture through theories that are beyond styles. The introduction of space in architecture will revolve around subject-object relationships, three-dimensionality and senses. Modern space will be discussed through concepts such as empathy, perception, abstraction, and geometry. A scientific approach will follow to study the concept of place through environment, event, behavior, and design methods. Finally, the research will look at contemporary approaches related to digitally supported space via concepts like reality-virtuality, mediated experience, and relationship with machines.

Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate:Implications for mixed-methods research

Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.

Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms

Despite an abundance of studies on hybridization and hybrid forms of organizing, scholarly work has failed to distinguish consistently between specific types of hybridity. As a consequence, the analytical category has become blurred and lacks conceptual clarity. Our paper discusses hybridity as the simultaneous appearance of institutional logics in organizational contexts, and differentiates the parallel co-existence of logics from transitional combinations (eventually leading to the replacement of a logic) and more robust combinations in the form of layering and blending. While blending refers to hybridity as an ‘amalgamate’ with original components that are no longer discernible, the notion of layering conceptualizes hybridity in a way that the various elements, or clusters thereof, are added on top of, or alongside, each other, similar to sediment layers in geology. We illustrate and substantiate such conceptual differentiation with an empirical study of the dynamics of public sector reform. In more detail, we examine the parliamentary discourse around two major reforms of the Austrian Federal Budget Law in 1986 and in 2007/2009 in order to trace administrative (reform) paradigms. Each of the three identified paradigms manifests a specific field-level logic with implications for the state and its administration: bureaucracy in Weberian-style Public Administration, market-capitalism in New Public Management, and democracy in New Public Governance. We find no indication of a parallel co-existence or transitional combination of logics, but hybridity in the form of robust combinations. We explore how new ideas fundamentally build on – and are made resonant with – the central bureaucratic logic in a way that suggests layering rather than blending. The conceptual findings presented in our article have implications for the literature on institutional analysis and institutional hybridity.