EPISTEMOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 3rd UFU ACCOUNTING CONGRESS

Abstract

The objective of this study is to empirically analyze the epistemological assumptions guided the research published at the 3rd UFU Congress of Accounting. For the analysis, the paradigms of Burrel and Morgan (1979) that make up the Framework of social research were considered. Methodologically, it is a research in the interpretative paradigmatic aspect, with the use of a qualitative approach and as a procedure a documental research. The 78 articles approved and published in the conference proceedings were analyzed. The main results revealed, according to Burrel and Morgan’s Framework (1979), that 82% of the researches fit the functionalist paradigm, which is characterized by a realistic ontology and a positivist epistemology; only 14 articles are configured as interpretivist (18%), presenting a nominalist ontology and an anti-positivist epistemology. Regarding the content of the research, it was found that no one carried out about the ontological and epistemological aspects. Although not mandatory, the absence of these reflections may suggest a lack of knowledge about these aspects or that researchers are only concerned with methodological elements and ignore the ontological and epistemological factors that are fundamental for the construction and understanding of scientific research. It was also confirmed that only 19 studies made using some theory to support their theoretical framework and discussion. In addition, most works (50) used the quantitative approach. The conclusion is that the barriers to opening new horizons beyond the dominant paradigm within accounting can be overcome, since the study demonstrate for accounting researchers the importance of developing research in alternative paradigms to positivism. It is not a matter of rejecting or excluding the functionalist paradigm, but rather of increasing the reflexivity of accounting research, overcoming its uses and limitations, as well as encouraging the emergence of new areas of research through multiple study perspectives.