Historiography, causality, and positioning: An unsystematic view of accounting history

Accounting Historians Journal, The, Jun 1999 by Oldroyd, David

Abstract: The article reviews recent developments in accounting historiography in relation to the underlying positioning of the participants. It finds that accounting history has located itself within the tradition of social science, which subsumes events into generalizations and generalizations into theory. It reviews the efficacy of causal theories of human behavior and proposes an alternative nontheoretical approach.

INTRODUCTION

In a thought-provoking, short article, Slocum [1995, p. 21] suggested that the phenomenon of history repeating itself occurs when the need for survival, coupled to the desire to take the easiest course, determines the path that is chosen. The implication is that there is a pattern to human activity, and that it is possible to theorize causal relationships. This chain of reasoning underlies the various accounting historiographical paradigms which seek to explain accounting activities and accounting change in terms of the pursuit of wealth through rational decision making (economic rationalist), the subjection of the forces of production through capitalism (Marxist), or the exercise of power through knowledge and symbolic representation (Foucauldian). The resultant causal structures are not the same. Authors maintain that the economic-rationalist paradigm tends towards a mechanistic view of cause and effect, whereas the other schools are more dynamic in that they focus on the processes of change by which new situations and practices are brought into being [Hopwood, 1981, p. 294; Mouck, 1995, pp. 74-78]. The Foucauldian emphasis on discontinuity [Fleischman and Tyson, 1997, pp. 92-97], that it is anachronistic to interpret the past as an extension of the present, in no way prevents the "dynamics that come to drive the power-knowledge interaction" [Hoskin et al., 1997, p. 3] from being theorized. Rather, the question becomes, when did conditions exist for them to operate? When did the modern world begin [Hoskin et al., 1997, p. 2]? These three models are merely illustrative rather than representative of the full genre of theoretical studies, which is extremely diverse. Young [1995], for example, adopted the theoretical concept of "regulatory space," Walker [1995] that of "critical-conflict," and Walker and Shackleton [1995] "British corporatism" to explain historical events within a single volume of Accounting, Organizations and Society.

The purpose of this article is to highlight the limitations of a theoretical approach to accounting history. It is therefore unashamedly reactionary, as theoretical history has gained ground in recent years [Fleischman and Tyson, 1997, p. 97]. Undoubtedly, the discipline of accounting history has been stimulated as a result, although some "traditional" accounting historians have felt that they are being "goaded and ridiculed" by the "energetic proponents of the new" [Funnell, 1998, p. 142]. The article commences by reviewing trends in accounting historiography over the last 25 years, before moving on to consider the nature and limitations of causal theories of accounting behavior. It argues that (1) the terminology that has been applied to research directions in accounting history is confused; that (2) accounting historiography has become more theoretical under the stimulus of "critical" scholarship; that (3) causal theories are undermined by the volatile elements of accident and personality which are not susceptible to prediction; and that (4) the present emphasis on theorizing causation is a reflection of the accounting discipline's own search for identity, coupled to the anthropic fallacy of historical reasoning, which places the historian at the center of the historical universe and uses the past to justify his/her view of the present.

HISTORIOGRAPHY

In recent years, accounting history has moved closer to the center of accounting research, and the nature and aims of the discipline have come under increasing scrutiny. Table 1 illustrates the range of classifications that have been applied to accounting history over the last 25 years, as scholars have attempted to rationalize accounting history's place in accounting research. These classifications and their linkages are useful because they illumine the underlying historiographical trends.

Different layers of meaning can be deduced from the table. First, as new research methodologies have manifested themselves, the exponents of the "new" have been keen to draw a distinction between their brand of history and what has gone before, the "traditional." However, the nature of this dichotomy is confused, which the table's linkages clearly show. For instance, the Foucauldian and Marxist worldviews have been characterized as "critical" because they try to render the familiar economic-rationalist view unfamiliar, by focusing on the hidden, unarticulated aspects of the accounting discipline [Merino and Mayper, 1993, pp. 238-239]. Thus, the economic rationalist viewpoint has been said to constitute "traditional" history, although the term also applies to studies which are descriptive in nature rather then interpretive [Fleischman et al., 1996b, p. 66], and which chart the technical development of accounting practice without contextualizing it [Hopwood, 1981, p. 295]. In this scheme, the discovery of technical data by "traditionalists" is still regarded as useful, albeit at the least publishable level of historical activity [Flesher and Samson, 1990, p. 3], because it provides fodder for the "contextualisers" to theorize [Napier, 1989, p. 250]. But, this implies a lack of interest on the part of traditional historians in causal relationships, which is quite inconsistent with the notion that they are also economic rationalists. Carnegie and Napier [1996, p. 14] acknowledged this situation by linking critical and economicrationalist studies together as both encouraging particular modes of explanation. Furthermore, "traditional" accounting histories have also been critiqued as those which follow an evolutionary or Darwinian model of accounting improvement from a less perfect past to a more perfect present [Hopwood, 1987, pp. 209-210; Napier, 1989, p. 244], a view also known as the "Whig interpretation of history" [Butterfield, 1973, p. 9], implying a causal model based on the natural selection of accounting techniques in which the "strongest" survive. It follows that there is some confusion in the terms that have been applied to accounting history over the last 25 years, which have multiplied as researchers have attempted to resolve disagreements over research aims and to rationalize the place of history in mainstream accounting research.