It is the turn of each of the following students to write a paper for this class meeting: Zhongzhi HE, Dominique DORION, Catherine LEROY-BELTRAN, Marcelo DOS SANTOS, and Raoul GRAF. The topic is interpretive case studies.

In addition to reading the two assigned articles (Gareth Morgan, "Accounting as Reality Construction: Towards a New Epistemology for Accounting Practice," Accounting, Organizations & Society, Volume 13, Number 5, 1988, pp. 477-485; and Michael J. Fischer, "'Real-izing' the Benefits of New Technologies as a Source of Audit Evidence: An Interpretive Field Study," Accounting, Organizations & Society, Volume 21, Number 2/3, 1996, pp. 219-242), also review the paper by Allen Lee from Class Meeting 2 (Allen Lee, "Researching MIS," forthcoming (1997) in RE-THINKING MIS, edited by R. Galliers & W. Currie, Oxford University Press, available on the world wide web at http://users.aol.com/allenslee/researching.htm).

1. (Dominique DORION.) How is Fischer's research interpretive instead of positivist? (Hint: the article by Morgan and the article by Lee both name many characteristics of interpretive research. First, in your own words, identify and describe three such characteristics from Morgan's article and three such characteristics from Lee's article. Second, use material from Fischer's article to illustrate these six characteristics of interpretive research.)

2. (Catherine LEROY-BELTRAN.) A researcher who is a "diehard" positivist insists that there is no value to interpretive research. You, however, believe that interpretive research has value and can offer useful findings that positivist research cannot. Write up an argument in which you intend to persuade the diehard positivist of your position, where you use the Fischer article as an example and where you draw upon Morgan and Lee for background concepts about interpretivism.

3. (Zhongzhi HE.) Could Fischer have conducted his study in a positivist way and still have reached the same conclusions? Explain your answer.

4. ( Marcelo DOS SANTOS.) First, define (in your own words) what "first order" concepts are and also what "second order" concepts are. Second, identify and provide the details of what you believe to be Fischer's three most significant first-order findings and three most important second-order findings. Third, explain whether or not it would have been possible for Fischer to arrive at his second-order findings without having first established his first-order findings.

5. (Raoul GRAF.) Please provide an assessment of whether or not Fischer's conclusions are persuasive to you. First, make up your own three or four criteria that either an interpretive case study or research in general must satisfy in order for you to find it persuasive. Second, apply those criteria to Fischer's research. (This is the sort of question for which there is no single correct answer. The most important thing is simply to provide sufficient reasoning to back up your position.)