A response to Stone and Parker

Rutherford, Brian A. (2016) A response to Stone and Parker. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 13 (1). pp. 90-91. ISSN 1176-6093. (doi:10.1108/QRAM-01-2016-0007) (The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided)

Abstract

Purpose – To respond to the comment by Stone and Parker on my paper “The struggle to fabricate accounting narrative obfuscation: An actor-network-theoretic analysis of a failing project”. Design/methodology/approach – The paper responds to issues highlighted by Stone and Parker. Findings – This response argues that there is at least one alternative to the augmentation of Flesch: that we bring our skills and experience as accountants directly to bear on narratives, to analyse and report on how accessible and informative they are – and even to what extent they obfuscate – in ways that will, at least according to some definitions, be subjective but perhaps no more subjective than asserting that some simple statistic represents a reliable proxy for a complex notion such as accessibility. Originality/value – This comment adds to the necessary debate about how we should tackle research on accounting narratives

Item Type:	Article
DOI/Identification number:	10.1108/QRAM-01-2016-0007
Uncontrolled keywords:	Flesch formula, Readability, Reader accessibility, Supplementary measures
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HF Commerce > HF5601 Accounting
Divisions:	Faculties > Social Sciences > Kent Business School > Accounting and Finance
Depositing User:	B. Rutherford
Date Deposited:	13 Jul 2016 14:40 UTC
Last Modified:	29 May 2019 17:34 UTC
Resource URI:	https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/56287 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)