A schism exists in accounting research, not only between the accounting profession and accounting researchers, but among the researchers themselves. This schism is a problem created by the lack of attention to the underlying ontological assumptions and epistemological assumptions held by accounting researchers. Using the work of Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan as a framework, this thesis establishes a picture of the objective-subjective dimension of research. From positivism to anti-positivism, from nominalism to realism, the implications of relative positions on this dimension for accounting research and accounting researchers are explored. The concept of a metascience approach to accounting research is introduced and a model is presented which focuses on and explores four possible areas of study: (1) researchers, (2) research, (3) knowledge systems, and, (4) market. Then a discussion ensues on the importance of maintaining an appropriate intellectual altitude--one that provides the proper perspective for the author in his attempted research. Accounting research must break from the confines of the positivist research paradigm and develop in the direction of critical theory as proposed by Jurgen Habermas. Accounting must move from dogmatic verification of what is and become more process-oriented. Research must focus on the societal implications of accounting rules and methods, and focus less on measurement of what is through the use of surrogates such as the stock market or CRSP tapes. An alternative research methodology requires methods which are hermeneutic and qualitative in nature. It also requires close introspection as to the ontological assumptions and epistemological assumptions hold as individuals.
