A theoretical exploration of positionality and “Interrelated Shadows” in management accounting field research

This study examines how researcher positionality – the boundaries between emotional closeness and professional distance – is implicated in the research process, including data accessibility, data collection, and interpretation. While the literature advocates for a “balanced” approach, this study argues that such balance is difficult to attain in field settings, where researchers and participants co-construct positionality through (in)formal interactions. Drawing on a two-year autoethnographic study with SPRINGWORK (pseudonym), a large Italian consulting firm, this paper introduces the metaphor of “interrelated shadows” to theorize positionality and its implications for knowledge production. The findings demonstrate that researcher roles and identities are continuously negotiated, with moments of destabilization illuminating hidden dimensions of organizational realities while affecting interpretation processes. These insights challenge the distinction between “behind-the-scenes” aspects of fieldwork and formal data collection moments, positioning destabilization as a natural and necessary part of fieldwork. The study proposes a reflexive framework for interpreting the shadows cast by researchers and participants, increasing awareness and understanding of the mechanisms underlying destabilizing positionality. By so doing, it positions fieldwork as an inherently relational process, where knowledge production emerges as a contested space in which researchers become part of the data they collect and analyze. The paper presents practical guidelines to help researchers critically examine their positions in the field, unpack the effects of destabilization on their research, and encourage transparency in scholarly work and writing.