Interview-based research in accounting 2000–2014: Informal norms, translation and vibrancy

This paper brings to light informal norms that surround the production of interview-based research in the accounting domain – specifically regarding the number of interviews, the notion of saturation, length of articles, length of dedicated method section, reference to data coding, and number of block quotations per article. Our premise is that while the formal methodological literature in qualitative research provides guiding principles, the guidance tends to be general, and at times contradictory and ambiguous, thereby rendering its implementation a thorny exercise. This formal guidance thus needs significant translation in the context of specific research projects. We conceive of methodological translation as a socially constituted endeavour, which is influenced (not deterministically however) by social norms that informally surround the undertaking of research projects. To carry out the investigation we tabulate 639 interview-based research articles in major accounting journals published in the 15-year period 2000–2014 and examine patterns in the way that interview data is drawn upon to support research claims. Across this period, we find that the median number of interviews in published articles in leading accounting journals is 26, with variation across journal outlet and time period. We note that only a minority of papers mention the notion of saturation. Further, when being mentioned, saturation is often articulated in a hazy way. We also find several other trends across the period including a decrease in the number of interviews in published articles, an escalation in article length, a marked increase in the length of method sections, a significant augmentation in reference to data coding procedures, and an increase in the number of block quotations.