I respond to Vosselman and De Loo’s (2023) critique of my earlier paper on agential realism, representation theory, and accounting information systems (Weber, 2020). In that paper, I argued that little is learned by using an agential realism lens to study accounting-related phenomena. I claimed that insights revealed using agential realism also could have been revealed through using existing lenses such as actor-network theory and general systems theory. In particular, I defended representation theory as a way of studying accounting information systems and representationalism as a way of studying the world. Contrariwise, Vosselman and De Loo argue that representation theory and representationalism are useful only in some respects when studying accounting-related phenomena. They contend that agential realism and sociomateriality lenses are needed if the entangled nature of phenomena in accounting domains is to be understood. They point to some assumptions that they claim underpin representationalism and representation theory—assumptions that inhibit their usefulness as a way of studying entangled phenomena. In this response, I present counter-arguments to their claims and defend representationalism and representation theory as ways of understanding the world.

我回应了 Vosselman 和 De Loo（2023）对我之前关于代理现实主义、表征理论和会计信息系统的论文的批评（Weber，2020）。在那篇论文中，我认为使用代理现实主义视角来研究会计相关现象几乎没有什么收获。我声称使用代理现实主义揭示的见解也可以通过使用现有的镜头（例如行动者网络理论和一般系统理论）来揭示。特别是，我捍卫表征理论作为研究会计信息系统的一种方式，以及表征主义作为研究世界的一种方式。相反，沃塞尔曼和德卢认为，表征理论和表征主义仅在研究会计相关现象时在某些方面有用。他们认为，如果要理解会计领域现象的复杂本质，就需要主体现实主义和社会物质性视角。他们指出了一些假设，他们声称这些假设是表征主义和表征理论的基础，这些假设抑制了它们作为研究纠缠现象的方法的有用性。在这篇回应中，我对他们的主张提出了反驳，并捍卫表征主义和表征理论作为理解世界的方式。