[雙語翻譯]外文翻譯--保持社會(huì)和環(huán)境會(huì)計(jì)研究的多樣性（英文）

1、Sustaining diversity in social and environmental accounting researchRobin W. Roberts *, Dana M. WallaceKenneth G. Dixon School of Accounting, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, United StatesCritical Perspe

2、ctives on Accounting 32 (2015) 78–87A R T I C L E I N F OArticle history:Available online 8 May 2015Keywords:Social accountingEnvironmental accountingCorporate social responsibilitySustainabilityQuantitative researchMot

3、s cle ´s:CritiqueEnvironnementalSocialPalabras clave:Cr? ´ticaAmbientalSocialA B S T R A C TDuring its relatively brief, 40-year life as a recognized field of inquiry (Owen, 2008),research in social and environ

4、mental accounting (SEA) has witnessed its fair share ofstruggles within both the mainstream and critical accounting literature. Only recently, theelite mainstream academic journals in the United States have (re)discovere

5、d SEA-relatedwork on corporate social responsibility, and in a vast majority of that work, earlier SEAstudies are either not acknowledged (e.g., Elliott, Jackson, Peecher, Tinker et al., 1991). At certain points in the d

6、evelopment of SEA research, common groundhas been found (Tinker Roberts (1) finding alternative literatures that resonate with our stance on SEA and (2) understanding mainstream positivist methodologies well enough to

7、disarm their criticisms. These issues are based on our observations and experiences while working in the ‘‘middle of the road’’ (i.e., non-mainstream) between the mainstream and critical SEA research communities and tryi

8、ng not to get ‘‘run over’’. We acknowledge that there are other pressing issues related to SEA research, but we believe that addressing these two issues successfully in non-mainstream SEA work is vital to seeing our prim

9、ary goals achieved through publication.3. Finding critical relevance in non-mainstream quantitative SEA researchFor the most part, mainstream quantitative SEA researchers have it easy theoretically speaking. The social s

10、cience assumptions of order and objectivity (i.e., sociological positivism) and narrow assumptions of traditional neoclassical economics are maintained hypotheses in most of this stream of research. Brute positivism does

11、 not require refined theory. The political nature of these meta-theoretical assumptions are almost never even acknowledged, much less articulated in U.S. elite mainstream quantitative SEA research or mainstream accountin

12、g research in general (Arnold, 2009). The researchers and their targeted audience who work within this genre of accounting research are assumed to hold a substantially similar worldview if only implicitly; so similar tha

13、t fundamental assumptions appear noncontroversial or perhaps trivial. This apparent lack of reflection seems to stem from their homogeneous and narrow doctoral training (Schwartz, Williams, Lehman, 2001; Spence et al.,

14、2010). From our perspective, the crux of the dilemma for any SEA researcher operating outside the mainstream is in determining the best strategy for influencing broad-based academic debate on critical issues of planetary

15、 sustainability and social justice. This situation returns us to our dilemma concerning non-mainstream quantitative SEA research being stuck between the ‘‘rock’’ of mainstream SEA research and the ‘‘hard place’’ of criti

16、cal SEA research; operating in the ‘‘middle of the road’’ and risking becoming a ‘‘dead armadillo’’. With theoretical debate virtually nonexistent in elite mainstream quantitative SEA research and that research stream be

17、ing well entrenched in the status quo, we think that non-mainstream quantitative SEA researchers are left with three viable and worthwhile options that can continue to create research that contributes to our collective a

18、spirations to improve planetary sustainability and social justice. They are:(1) Act theoretically agnostic and challenge U.S. elite mainstream results within the boundaries of their own research traditions and language (

19、be real thorns in their side).(2) Develop and/or import theories from alternative literatures that have some elements in common with the broader mainstream (attempt to initiate substantive, relevant debate within an acce

20、ptable level of shared understanding without explicitly renouncing the status quo).(3) Advance critical SEA research using objectivist methodologies (broaden the purview of political economy perspectives).These options a

21、re not new and can be evidenced through the individual research agendas of many non-mainstream quantitative SEA researchers. Guidry and Patten (2012) provide an excellent example of option one. This study uses a mainstre

22、am approach to SEA research to challenge previous studies that supported neoclassical economics-based explanations for the inclusion of financial control variables in environmental disclosure models. The paper operates w