In defence of critical realism: a reply to Baxter and Chua and Andrew and Baker

Abstract

PurposeThis is a reply to the commentaries by Baxter and Chua (2020) and Andrew and Baker (2020) on a paper previously published in this journal.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual discussion that further clarifies the differences between critical realism (CR), actor–network theory (ANT) and traditional Marxist thought as a basis for critical accounting research.FindingsThe relative merits of CR as a basis for critical accounting research are further elucidated in the light of the criticisms raised in the commentaries. In particular, the discussion of its role as a counterweight to the legacy of empiricism that hampers the possibilities of advancing radical social critique and emancipation is further developed.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper clarifies what CR can and cannot do for the critical accounting project and how it may be further developed as a vehicle for emancipation.Originality/valueThe paper extends the debate about what critical accounting research is and could be.