Abstract This commentary on the article “On the centrality of peripheral research and the dangers of tight boundary gatekeeping” is a personal reflection developed around four considerations. (1) Boundaries are defined according to the center we position ourselves in, which implies that multiple centers and boundaries are possible. (2) Although tension between multiple centers is typical across disciplines in their endeavor to create disciplinary identity, their existence is related to paradigmatic divides. (3) Problems related to excessive gatekeeping arise to protect the reputation of the dominant center. (4) The complexity of today’s societal and environmental challenges calls for an interdisciplinary approach. My concluding remarks develop the idea that, if bridges cannot be built across paradigmatic divides, tensions can be harnessed productively by nurturing academic empathy. Academic empathy, I argue, becomes key for the way in which we – as individual scholars – face today’s greatest challenges that are, in their nature, interdisciplinary and require us to rethink boundaries.

中文翻译：

---

会计研究边界、多中心与学术同理心

摘要 对“关于外围研究的中心性和紧密边界守门的危险”一文的评论是围绕四个考虑展开的个人反思。(1) 边界是根据我们所处的中心定义的，这意味着多个中心和边界是可能的。(2) 尽管多个中心之间的张力是跨学科在努力创造学科认同方面的典型特征，但它们的存在与范式分歧有关。(3) 为保护主导中心的声誉而出现的过度把关问题。(4) 当今社会和环境挑战的复杂性需要跨学科的方法。我的结束语提出了这样一种观点，即如果不能跨越范式分歧建立桥梁，可以通过培养学术同理心来有效地利用紧张局势。我认为，学术同理心成为我们——作为个别学者——面对当今最大挑战的关键，这些挑战本质上是跨学科的，需要我们重新思考界限。