Implementaci´on de FQbin distribuida en varios locales

The research philosophy can be described through the elaboration of the researcher’s epistemological and ontological positions (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

It is essential to know the researcher`s perspective in order to understand the process of formulating the research questions, choosing the research approach and analyzing the data (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). According to Crotty (1998), the research philosophy is identified as a fundamental element of the research process. In general, these four ele- ments determine the research process including the decision about appropriate strategies and methods (Hopper and Powell, 1985). The study of Guba and Lincoln (1994) followed this approach and even advanced it. They suggest that the researcher’s

87 philosophical position is to be answered prior to the process of conducting the research. This is due to the fact that these assumptions influence the whole research process. In order to determine the philosophical assumption underlying this PhD thesis, the epis- temological and ontological position needs to be classified (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

In particular, the term ontology refers to the question what exists to be searched (Wal- liman, 2016). The first ontological question would be what do we know and the second question would be how the researcher can know this. In summary, ontology deals with the question of reality while the epistemology is concerned with the knowledge and the truth. The initial question is how the researcher comes to know.

It has to be noted that there is an interrelationship between ontology, epistemology, methodology, methods and data sources. This is illustrated in the following figure be- low.

Figure 5: Interrelationship according to Grix (2018)

In summary, the philosophy of reality is explained by the ontology while epistemology defines how the knowledge about reality can be gained (Hopper et al., 2007). The meth- odology addresses the different practices to conduct research and acquire knowledge. The research methods include the procedures that can be used to gain the data. Howev- er, this depends on the accessible data sources.

According to Kuhn (2012), the complexity of research perspectives could be simplified through the use of paradigms. Those can be compared to a map for the nature of reality and truth (Kuhn, 2012). In literature the term ‘paradigm’ is defined as “[...]progress of scientific practice based on people`s philosophies and assumptions about the world[...]” (Collis and Hussey, 2013, p. 47) and the nature of reality and truth. The following sec- tions outline the differences between positivist, realist, interpretivist and phenomenolog- ical paradigm.

88 The paradigm of the researcher refers to the research philosophy (Collis and Hussey, 2013). It describes the researcher`s worldview regarding the nature of knowledge. In general, there are two extremes regarding the paradigm which are the phenomenological paradigm and the positivist paradigm. Depending on the research paradigm, there are completely different assumptions regarding the nature of reality. Furthermore, the as- sumption concerning the role of the researcher, his influence and the relationship to- wards the research objective have to be taken into account.

From the ontological point of view, the positivist believes that reality exists inde- pendently of the researcher (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). According to Maylor and Blackmon (2005), the positivist regards the reality as something external and objective. In correspondence with that, the realist also takes the view that reality is objective. Fur- ther, the ontological worldview of the realism states that reality is independent of the fact whether the researcher knows of its existence (Silverman, 2017). However, the crit- ical realist beliefs that there is some interpretivism in reality through social conditioning (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

Moreover, interprets take the view that reality is subjective and can be socially struc- tured. Thus, the reality may change and can be multiple. With regard to the ontological standpoint, the phenomenological paradigm also states that reality is subjective (Healy and Perry, 2000). Further, the nature of reality is dependent on the researchers since they are a part of the research (Collis and Hussey, 2013).

From the epistemological standpoint, the positivist takes the view that reliable data can only be collected through observable facts or phenomena. The positivist aims to gener- alize through causality rules and laws. In addition, the realist focuses on explaining ob- servable phenomena within a context. Moreover, the critical realist beliefs that each phenomenon establishes sensations and thus, there is a risk of misinterpretation. In con- trast, the interpretivism paradigm focuses on the reality behind phenomena. According to the interpretivism paradigm there are subjective meanings of the truths (Easterby- Smith et al., 2008). In line with this, the phenomenological paradigm also beliefs that knowledge is subjective and there are different meanings of a phenomenon (Collis and Hussey, 2013).

Beside the researcher`s epistemological and ontological positions, the axiology might influence the research philosophy. Axiology describes the role of values in the research-

89 ers` worldview. In particular, the positivist takes the view that values do not influence the research process. The conducted research is value-free. In contrast, the paradigm of realism is characterized by the axiological view that the researcher is biased through own experiences, educational background and interaction with other individuals (Tran- field et al., 2003). This might influence the research and the interpretation of results. The interpretivism paradigm even states that values play a key role regarding the inter- pretation of results. According to the phenomenological paradigm, the researcher him- self is part of the conducted research. Thus, the values have an impact on the research. Defining the underlying research position of this study, the nature of this PhD thesis has also to be taken into account. It aims to examine the interaction between textual similar- ity of the notes to the accounts and earnings management behaviour. Indeed, it draws on empirical findings from the statistical analysis of financial statement data. Further, it has to be considered that there is a lack of existing theory regarding the relationship be- tween similarities of the notes to the accounts and earnings quality. Therefore, it was prerequisite to draw on theories from closely related areas of research in the fields of earnings management, accounting comparability, disclosure quality and corporate gov- ernance. In addition, the review of statutory provisions, regulations and jurisdictions within the area of accounting and auditing was necessary in order to formulate the re- search questions. In summary, this empirical study about the relationship between simi- larities of the notes to the accounts and earnings management can be described as objec- tive. Thus, this research belongs to the `Positivism´ paradigm which is discussed more detailed in the following section.

According to the definition of Walliman, the positivist paradigm was originally applied by the “[...]natural sciences to the study of social reality, an objective approach that can test theories and establish scientific laws.” (Walliman, 2016, p. 15). There is an objec- tive truth which the positivist aims to reveal through quantitative research methods. The focus is on the statistical measurement of relationships between different phenome- na which are systematically expressed by variables (Pettigrew and McKechnie, 2001). The positivist aims to approve or disprove hypothesis through quantitative methods (Saunders et al., 2015).

In summary, the view of the positivism paradigm corresponds with the philosophical underpinning of this PhD thesis. From the ontological point of view, the examined in- teraction between textual similarity of the notes to the accounts and earnings manage-

90 ment behaviour exists independently of the researcher. Thus, this accounting phenome- non is something external and objective. Further, the textual similarities of the notes to the accounts as well as the implementation of earnings management are observable phenomena. These are expected to provide credible data from the epistemological standpoint. Moreover, this research focuses on causality between textual similarities of the notes to the accounts and earnings management behaviour. This corresponds with the positivists´ preference for generalization. From the axiological point of view, this research is conducted free of any values. The researcher has an objective stance and is not part of the research.