The future(s) of interpretive accounting research—A polyphonic response from beyond the metropolis

This paper contains a brief response to the debate about the future of interpretive accounting research (IAR) contained in Ahrens et al. [Ahrens T, Becker A, Burns J, Chapman C, Granlund M, Habersam M, et al. The future of interpretive research—a polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting; in press]. Our response is structured in the polyphonic style of the Ahrens et al. debate but is positioned as a response which has its authorial roots emanating from beyond the ‘metropolis’ (the origins of the text being discussed). Drawing on our personal reactions to this text, we organise our response around two themes: first, difference and its connection to self/social worth; and, second, the relationship between IAR's forms of engagement and the construction of possible future(s). It is our conclusion that IAR is capable of sustaining a range of loosely aligned possible futures, cohered both by the enduring differences associated with IAR, as well as a stronger sense of identity formed through decentred and dispersed networks of connective knowledges about accounting practice.