Theory VS Theorisation

Theories are developed by researchers that we can use to generalise the world we perceived. They are useful in a way when we apply them to the context that we do search in. The process of explain and understand how theories make sense in one particular setting is called theorisation. During this process, theories can be modified or advanced and finally contribute back to our general understanding of the world and society.  I have selected a paper in the area of my research interest and use them as examples to explain the link between theory and theorisation. The theory used in the papers is borrowed from other discipline rather than accounting. The researchers apply the theory in the corporate governance setting to enhance our understanding about this field.

PERKINS, S. J. & HENDRY, C. 2005. Ordering Top Pay: Interpreting the Signals*. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1443-1468.

This paper explores the process of how the remuneration plans are being set by the board of directors and in particular, make an effort to investigate what are the factors that might influence their decision-making.

The theory they used is the notion of competitive market from the basic economic theories. It suggests that when there are many buyers and sellers in a market place to make transactions, the price will become a mechanism to adjust the demand and supply, and no single buyer or seller has the power to manipulate the price setting.

Applying this theory in the corporate governance context, there is an executive labour market exists where companies are finding the best-suitable executives for their firms. Therefore, the level of remuneration received by the CEO is, at least partially, affected by the average price in the market. In this sense, the high remuneration received by CEO in some place might be driven by the market mechanism instead of personal opportunistic behaviours.

As you can see, apply this theory in the corporate governance content extend our understanding about this field by introduce a different motive of high CEO pay which have not yet been considered in corporate governance research. The mainstream literature suggests the high CEO compensations are dominated by CEO’s personal interest to influence the board of directors to boost their paycheck. This paper brings out another explanation suggesting board of directors might intentionally offer CEO high pays in order for the CEO to be retained in the company and continue to perform due to the force from executive labour market. This has significant implication to the corporate governance research as it serves as a potential explanation for the current inconsistent empirical findings on CEO pay and bring in richness to the understanding of the pay-setting process. 

Academic Writing – The Voice To Communicate With Other Researchers

Research is not only about what you find, but also how to make your research tribe accept your contribution. To do this, it requires some careful thinking about the way we organise and represent our research, which refers to the using of rhetorical device.

Jacobs (2003) "Class Reproduction in Professional Recruitment: Examining the Accounting Profession" serves as a good example of qualitative paper using this writing style.

Introduction is always a critical part of academic paper, which determines whether the readers are captured by your research and have a desire to continue reading (except the abstract). There are two styles of introduction. The first one is “story-telling” which provides some background and summary of prior literature, and then brings out the objective of the current research. The other way is to just start with the goal of this research and then starts to engage with the prior literature. Jacobs (2003, P569) uses the second style, which in my view is more preferable. By stating “ The paper explores… The focus of this paper is…This paper presents a study of….” in the first several sentences of the paper, this gives readers a clear picture of what this paper is trying to achieve. It seems to be a better way to start an academic paper as most of people who read this paper might already have knowledge in the area of your research. If you use half of a page writing something they have already known, this can bore them and make them stop writing your paper. Capture their attention in the first line of your research paper avoid this potential problem.

After capture readers’ attention, it is important to demonstrate you know the field well to carry out the research you are doing. And this is the second step to buy into your research tribe. Jacob (2003) has done a great job by putting several references every time he mentions prior research’s point of view in the introduction. For example, “ Essentially, how accounting techniques and technologies benefit… to oppress workers and the working class (see Armstrong, 1987; Puxty, 1990; Tinker, 1985)”. Another example is in Davison (2009), which summarise the main findings from previous studies in one sentence along with ten plus references (see P885). These are efficient way to show readers that I know what I’m taking about without wasting too much of your ink.

Finally, it is important to realize that the audiences of our papers are academics who have lots of knowledge and perspectives on certain things. Using some rhetorical device to show some courtesy to your fellow researcher can make it easier for them to interpret your research in the way you lead them to. The first things we need to do this acknowledge other researchers’ work. Jacob (2003, P570) uses “ With the critical literature the question of recruitment to the accounting professional has received some attention.” “There has been some effort…”. Showing your politeness can also be achieved using hedges interpersonal metadiscourse. For instance, Jacob (2003, P570) uses “ In fact gender could be….”.

However, it seems to be a difference in using these interpersonal metadiscourses between qualitative and quantitative studies. It is common for qualitative studies to use hedges interpersonal metadiscourse, whereas quantitative studies tend to use rational markers such as, frankly and note that. My supervisor has told me that I should not use indefinitely words, like “it seems like”, “it might be that” in describing my research (since my research is mainly quantitative). It is because it gives people a sense that you doubt your own research or you don’t believe what you have found. As quantitative research are heavily based on number which should be quite discrete, this might give the readers an negative impression on your research. Therefore, it might be wise to tailor make your research to the style of your target tribe or journal rather than sampling following some general rule of writing style.