Evolusi riset auditing dalam bingkai paradigma interpretif
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30872/jakt.v20i1.12901Keywords:
Interpretif, auditing, akuntansi, paradigmaAbstract
Pengembaraan atas pengetahuan selama ini hanya berhasil dilakukan melalui pendekatan umum berbasis rasionalitas dan objektivitas. Kekuatan prediksi dan penjelas atas fenomena yang terjadi menjadi tujuan dari pendekatan ini. Namun sayangnya pendekatan tersebut hanya mampu mengungkap realitas sebatas permukaan semata tanpa kesuksesan untuk menggali hakikat makna terdalam. Ternyata, ada pendekatan lain yang bisa menemukan dan mengungkap realitas secara lebih mendalam, yaitu melalui paradigma interpretif yang dikenal dengan riset yang menghasilkan kedalaman dan refleksivitas. Namun sayangnya, kebenaran bahwa paradigma tersebut memiliki kekuatan lebih dalam menguak fenomena yang terjadi harus tersisihkan dan tak berdaya oleh sebab dominasi paradigma positivis di kalangan periset, termasuk di dalamnya peneliti di bidang akuntansi. Auditing sebagai salah satu area akuntansi pun mengalami hal serupa yang harus terbelenggu oleh kestabilan metode penelitian kuantitatif. Seiring perjalanannya, auditing yang selama ini disentuh hanya melalui satu pendekatan, secara perlahan beralih menggunakan paradigma interpretif dan berhasil menyodorkan fakta-fakta baru yang mencengangkan yang belum pernah ditemukan sebelumnya. Paradigma interpretif dengan keunggulannya mampu menghadirkan ragam temuan menarik di ranah auditing yang dapat memperkaya temuan yang selama ini telah dihasilkan.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies 50 (1).
Anggraini, Rosalina Yuri. (2017). Masuknya Paradigma Interpretif pada Kajian Ilmu Akuntansi. Jurnal Analisa Akuntansi dan Perpajakan, Vol 1, Nomor 1, Maret 2017.
Awadalla, E.A & A. F. Elbayoumi. (2013). An Interpretive Analysis of How Audit Quality is Perceived in Economies in Transition. 49th British Accounting and Finance Association Annual Conference, Newcastle. Diakses melalui: http://scholar.cu.edu.eg/?q=afelba/publications/interpretive-analysis-how-audit-quality-perceived-economies-transition-0
Bansal, P., & K. Corley. (2011). The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal 54 (2): 233–237.
Basrowi & Sukidin. (2002). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif Perspektif Mikro. Percetakan Insan Cendekia. Surabaya.
Burrell, Gibson & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann.
Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D, R & Ye, Z. (2011). Corporate governance research in accounting and auditing: Insights, practice implications, and future research directions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30 (3).
Chapman, C. S. (2012). Framing the issue of research quality in a context of research diversity. Accounting Horizons 26 (4): 821–831.
Chariri, A. (2009). Landasan Filsafat dan Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Paper disajikan pada Workshop Metodologi Penelitian Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif, Laboratorium Pengembangan Akuntansi (LPA), Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Diponegoro Semarang, 31 Juli – 1 Agustus 2009
Chwastial, Michele & Young, J, J. (2003). Silences in Annual Report. Critical Perspective on Accounting (14)
Chwastial, Michele & Lehman, G. (2008). Accounting for War. Accounting Forum (32)
Chua, W.F. (1986). Radical Developments in Accounting Thought, The Accounting Review, Vol. LXI, No. 4, pp. 601-632
Clegg, S. (2006). The bounds of rationality: Power/history/imagination. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17 (7).
Creswell, John W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. California: Sage Publication.
Djamhuri, A., (2012). Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial dan Berbagai Paradigma dalam Kajian Akuntansi. Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma, 2(1).
Gendron, Yves & Bedard, Jean. (2006). On the Constitution of Audit Committee Efectiveness. Accounting, Organizations and Society (31).
Gibbins, M., & K. Jamal. 1993. Problem-centred research and knowledge-based theory in the professional accounting setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (5).
Have, Paul ten. (2004). Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology. Sage Publication Ltd.
Hopwood, A. G. (1983). On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (2/3).
Jailani, M.S. 2012. "Interaksi Simbolik, Konstruktivisme, Teori Kritis, Postmodernisme Dan Post-Strukturalisme (Telaah Basis Teoritis Paradigma Penelitian Kualiatatif)." Edu-Bio, Vol. 3.
Kamayanti, Ari. (2016). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif Akuntansi: Pengantar Religiositas Keilmuan. Yayasan Rumah Peneleh. Jakarta.
Kitchenham, B & Charters, S. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kohtala, C. (2015). Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: An integrated literature review,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 106, pp. 654–668.
Kuhn, Thomas. (1962). “The structure of Scientific revolution.” International Encyclopedia of Unified Science: The University of Chicago Press.
Lannai, D., M. Sudarma, G. Irianto, & U. Ludigdo. (2014). Phenomenology Study About Performance Meaning At Indonesia Foundation (Case Studies At Wakaf Foundation Of Indonesian Muslim University). International Journal of Business and Management Invention, Vol. 3, No. 5.
Morin, Danielle & Mouna Hazgui , (2016), We are much more than watchdogs. Journal of Accounting &Organizational Change, Vol. 12 Iss 4
Mills, S, K & Bettner, M, S. (1992). Ritual and Conflict In The Audit Profession. Critical Perspective on Accounting (3).
Muhadjir, Noeng. 2000. “Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif.” Jogjakarta: Rake Sarasin.
Pentland, B. T. (1993). Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macroorder. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (7/8): 605–620.
Power, M. (1996). Making Things Auditable. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 21, No. 2/3.
Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (4).
Ragin, Charles C. (1994) Constructing social research: the unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Roekhudin, Triyuwono, I, Sukoharsono, I, G, & Rosidi. (2015). Fair value measurements (FVMs) rejection and reconstruction: a phenomenological study of internal accountant response towards FV accounting and reporting. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences (211).
Sarantakos, S. (1993). Social Research. Macmillan Education Australia, Melbourne.
Stewart Raymond Lawrence, Vida Botes, Eva Collins, & Juliet Roper. (2013) "Does accounting construct the identity of firms as purely self-interested or as socially responsible?". Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 21 Issue: 2, pp.144-160, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-09-2012-0030.
Sekaran, U. (2010). Research Methods for Business, A Skill Building Approach, Fifth Edition. John Wiley & Son, Inc.
Spradley, J, P. (1997). Metode Etnografi. Terjemahan oleh Misbah Zulfa ELizabeth. Tiara Wacana, Yogyakarta.
Triyuwono, Iwan. (2012). Akuntansi Syariah, Prespektif, Metode dan Teori. Edisi Kedua. Penerbit Rajawali Perss.
Whittemore, R and Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology,, J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 546–553.
Williams, P. F., G. Jenkins, & Ingraham. L. (2006). The winnowing away of behavioral accounting research in the US: The process for anointing academic elites. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (8).
Yuan, Y & Hunt, R, H. (2009). Systematic reviews: The good, the bad, and the ugly, Am. J. Gastroenterol., vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 1086–1092.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
AKUNTABEL: Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan
pISSN: 0216-7743 eISSN: 2528-1135
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License