CATS, RATS, AND EARS - MAKING THE CASE FOR ETHNOGRAPHIC ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

In this paper we argue that ethnographic or interpretive accounting re search studies (EARS), which have been marginalized by critical accoun ting theory studies (CATS) and rational accounting theory studies (RAT S), are a valuable way to understand the way accounting works in actua l organizational settings. The problem of researching trust and its re lation to accounting is used as an example where EARS seems to hold th e edge over both CATS and RATS. The paper describes three main types o f EARS-cognitive anthropology, symbolic interactionism, and ethnometho dology, briefly describes a classical ethnographic study and an accoun ting example of each type. It then sets up a conversational debate bet ween EARS, CATS, and RATS in order to bring out their major points of disagreement and concurrence. The paper concludes by speculating that some sort of rapprochment might be worked out whereby EARS will be ind uced to work more closely to current theoretical discourses and that C ATS and RATS will pay more attention to the stories and beliefs of rea l live actors in actual organizational settings. The result could be a sort of critical ethnography. The big challenge seems to be to find o ut whether trust and accounting are phenomena on different levels of a nalysis that can be studied (following Wittgenstein) as figure and gro und, or whether they are mutually constitutive and thus something we s hould not talk about-at least until we know more. We conclude that one valuable way to proceed is a research strategy whereby field narrativ es are produced along classical ethnographic lines and then used to in terrogate, reinterpret, and perhaps revise reigning critical accountin g studies. (C) 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.