please rephrase these answers

1. Yin (2013) Distinguishes four types of case studies. What are they?

Yin distinguishes four types of case study. These types of case studies are exploratory, descriptive, illustrative and explanatory.

2. Kirk and Miller (1986), among others, emphasize the consideration of the validity and reliability of field studies. What are the considerations? (Hint: Page 163.)

The consideration are whether it presents a consistent interpretation of the data, whether the empirical observations justify the extent of the conceptual generalizations, whether rival explanations for the observations have been considered and/or eliminated, and the replicability of the findings which is, whether different researchers in different time periods are likely to generate similar findings.

3. Three distinct forms of field research can be distinguished. List and briefly summarize the three.

1. Complete participant. This type of research can take one of two forms:

participant as observer - the observer's role as a researcher is concealed from the participant organization (e.g. Rosenhahn, 1982, as a member of staff in a mental hospital), or

observer as participant - where the observer is an existing member of the organization and conducts research in that organization (e.g. Ezzamel and Bourn, 1990).

2. Complete observer. The observer has no contact with the subjects being researched. Such an anthropological approach is almost unknown in the accounting literature. At the extreme (particularly when associated with ethnographic studies), involvement in the research process will be as a non-participating observer. However, unless it is covert, even observation at this level is likely to impact on the behavior of individuals, and hence on research outcomes.

So active involvement, rather than detached observation and measurement, is the norm in action research projects. Indeed, such involvement is facilitated by a researcher who has the practical expertise and theoretical knowledge to bring a new perspective to organizational issues. Brannick and Coghlan (2007) suggest that organization-based research is best conducted by insiders, rather than by outside observers who lack detailed knowledge of the organization.

The nature of the exercise requires a high level of trust and collaboration between researchers and management (non-researchers); the latter may resist any imposition of a structured research design, preferring action research that will result in outcomes of clear benefit to the organization. For the internal participants, a feasible solution to a taxing problem will be the appropriate measure of success. They may not be interested in testable hypotheses and causal methods, so reporting at two levels may be required: an internal report of a consulting nature, which will focus on problem-solving, and a research report which forms part of a dissertation or which ultimately yields a refereed paper.

The ethnographic extreme has its origins in social anthropology, with the observation of tribes, and in natural science, with the observation of the behavior of animal troops. A shared knowledge is used to account for patterns of behavior and personal relations, with potential implications for humans in business settings. Emphasis is on observation, but may be complemented with semi-structured interviews, though not active participation. A series of questions arises as to the manner in which ethnographic studies may be conducted. Consider them, for example, in terms of our wish to observe processes of an executive nature, perhaps at board level:

Participant or non-participant observation?

Overt or covert observation?

Ethically defensible deception under covert conditions?

Direct or indirect observation?

The reliability of secondary data?

Of course, where sensitive issues are under discussion, we may have to settle for secondary data, or a sanitized version of events. Such material, for example, minutes of meetings, may well provide no detail of discussions or the contributions of individual participants, power structures or group dynamics.

Covert observation has the advantage of allowing manipulations (e.g. changes in behavior or role) to be introduced, without their being attributed to the research process. It may also be impossible to conduct the research were the researcher to be so identified. However, Ditton (1977), reported in Bryman (2001: 93), amply illustrates the problems associated with covert operations. He was exploring fraudulent practices in a bakery and was regularly forced to excuse himself to make notes on Bronco toilet paper. The time spent on toilet breaks eventually induced him to 'come out' regarding his covert research! Coffey (1999) provides an example of overt participation in his study within a UK accounting firm.

3. Participant-observer. The most common scenario, this is where the researchers interact with the members of the organization in a collaborative venture. It is often termed 'action research'. The participation is usually active on both sides and is more than either a consultancy project or an in-company problem-solving exercise. The research is guided by theory in examining the change process, allowing the anticipation of consequences and outcomes. The process should have external validity in that it should produce generalizations which have relevance to other organizations. However, we should be reminded here of the problems alluded to in Chapter 1 during our discussion of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in that the intrusion of the researcher, as participant-observer, may make it impossible to conduct measurement in an unbiased manner.

4. Scopes (2004) ranks researcher engagement at five levels depending on the level of participation and interactions. What are they?

First is outsider - relying on documentary (archival) sources only, with no direct engagement

Second is visitor - evidenced by repeated visits to the case study site over a period of time to conduct interviews and make observations

Third is facilitator - with direct involvement in the examination of issues - as would be common in action research

Fourth is participant - employed as a working member of an organizational group and able to observe events at close hand accordingly, and

Fifth is actor - playing a leading role in organizational decision-making, where stage 4 would normally be a precursor of stage 5, and wherein both researchers would incorporate ethnographic/participant-observer roles.

5. Parker (2012) identifies three major characteristics that distinguish qualitative research from positivist quantitative research. What are they?

The first major characteristic is that accounting contributes to the construction of reality rather than there being an independent objective reality of any kind.

The second major characteristics is that the data collection processes can inform theory, and vice versa.

The third major characteristic is that multiple theories can provide a richer understanding of processes and relationships.

6. Humphrey and Lee (2004) identify three classic worries among qualitative researchers with respect to case study projects. What are they?

Case studies are interesting, but they are not academic.

Case studies do not add to knowledge.

Case studies are too hard to get published.

7. Ryan et al. (2002:143) distinguish five categories of accounting case study. What are they?

Descriptive - where current practice is described in terms of the procedures adopted. The studies may seek to confer 'best-practice' or 'successful' labels to particular sites or companies.

Illustrative - where the researchers explore the implementation and outcomes associated with innovative practices .

Experimental - where the research concerns the conduct of an experiment in the field, whereby new treatments are applied to sub-units of the site. Examples of this type of research remain rare in the accounting literature; the most famous and notorious example in related literature remains the Hawthorne studies.

Exploratory - where the researchers conduct a preliminary investigation about how and why particular practices are adopted. Such research may be difficult to publish in itself unless it makes a clear contribution to theory or method.

Explanatory - where research seeks to provide convincing explanations that justify practice choices and facilitate the development of theory. However, opportunities or attempts to generalize the findings are rare.

8. Cooper and Morgan (2006), following Flyvbjerg (2001), suggest that the motive for the selection of cases falls into one of four alternative categories. What are the four categories?

Extreme/deviant - where the case is used to take advantage of a change in circumstances within an organisation. Berry et al. (1985) provide such an example, with their work on the National Coal Board during a period of intense change. Likewise, Lys and Vincent (1995) examine the processes and outcomes during a controversial acquisition.

Maximum variation - where the case provides the opportunity to learn about one thing while varying another. Merchant and Manzoni (1989) provide just such an example by choosing company cases from several industries, and with different technology bases and growth rates. By examining the achievability of budget targets across all the cases they are able to provide new insights into the budget-setting process.

Critical - where the case is deliberately selected to facilitate the potential for falsification of theory. Thus, Preston (1989) provides an example for an organisation implementing a sophisticated management control system, where before nothing existed. The motives and benefits for the development of accounting ran counter to existing theory.

Paradigmatic - where the case is selected to provide a specific contribution to theory. Tinker and Niemark (1987) do so by using a longitudinal study of General Motors to demonstrate the significance of the non-financial messages in the corporate annual report.

9. Hopper and Hoque (2006: 478) specified three forms of triangulation: What are they?

Theory triangulation - through the use of different theoretical approaches to examine a single issue. They float the possibility of using rational choice models, a contingency approach, agency theory and human relations theory to investigate management accounting practice. Berry et al. (1991), Hoque and Hopper (1997), Carpenter and Feroz (2001) and Modell (2005) all provide examples of use of a triangulation approach in management accounting.

Data triangulation - through the use of multiple data sources, quantitative and qualitative, providing data from a combination of interviews, field studies, surveys and archival sources (e.g. Lukka and Kasanen, 1995; Modell, 2005).

Investigator triangulation - through the use of multiple independent researchers to collect the data. However, Lillis (2006: 467) warns of the potential dangers in overestimating the benefits of such an approach.

10. Silverman (1985) suggests a typology comprising three alternative approaches to ethnographic research. What are they?

Cognitive anthropology - research that focuses on the individual's competence in communicating within the culture under study (i.e. the way in which the actors are able to communicate and behave, thus making them acceptable to the rest of the group). Dent's (1991) study of the shift of British Rail's culture from an engineering one to a finance/accounting one provides an example of this approach in the accounting literature.

Symbolic interactionism - research concerning the manner in which actors change the culture of organisations with which they are involved. Preston's (1986) study of management information processing in a large plastics division, as a participant-observer, provides an example of this approach.

Ethnomethodology - research which is less concerned with the communication and interaction approaches (above) and more concerned with the social behaviour of the actors involved and their interpretation of outcomes. Jnsson's (1982) study of budgetary behaviour provides an example of this approach in the accounting literature.