Incommensurable but still compatible: paradigm hybridization trends in qualitative management control systems research

Purpose Despite the presence of the incommensurability argument between the two major paradigms of interpretivism and positivism, this paper clarifies why and how the two paradigms are hybridized and how they can facilitate new directions in qualitative management control systems research. Design/methodology/approach The extant qualitative field study evidence from both interpretivist- and positivist-oriented management control systems (MCS) literature mapped to our analytical framework adapted from Chua (1986) to identify the nature of hybridization and their future directions. Findings Initiated by interpretivists, the first hybrid model of explanatory interpretivism retains its interpretivist ontology but integrates re-engineered positivistic explanatory structures in epistemology. The second model, non-hypothetico positivism, preserves its positivist ontological tradition but discards hypotheses development in its epistemology and generalizes the results to broader theory. These two models imply that the incommensurability exists only at ontological levels and that the two paradigms are compatible for hybridization at epistemological and/or methodological levels. Though the last model, critical realism, combines features of positivism and interpretivism in its ontology, the moderateness in combination does not entirely overrule the incommensurability argument. Originality/value Though incommensurability of the two paradigms is entrenched in both accounting and organizational literature, our study explains the “paradox” of how MCS studies adopting hybridized paradigms also continue to flourish. We also show how the hybrid models help advance three new directions in future MCS research, including, (1) enhancing the effectiveness of mixed-method research; (2) resolving questions unaddressed by “pure” paradigmatic approaches; and (3) understanding unusual solutions already adopted in practice.