Radical Developments In Accounting Thought Critical Analysis
Executive Summary
Accounting work is influenced by three paradigms of theory-positivism, interpretation, and criticism. It is believed that accounting journals which are top ranked are dominated by Positivist research. The author in this research paper argues that this is not because such work succeeds in finding invariant scientific rules that allow for prediction and regulation, but that in liberal democracy it is compatible with core beliefs and values. It is the fact that there is inability to make law-like generalizations in accounting, but the assumed prestige of positivist researches could be strengthened by increasing university rankings, thus decreasing diversity in research. This paper offers countervailing forces: disparities in stakeholder interests in various national jurisdictions, some increasing diversity in journals of North American, and the use of mixed methods of research or qualitative methods of research for positivist purposes. These allow for the ongoing creation of critical and interpretive research. It is hoped that deeper research cooperation will occur through greater interaction with the dynamics of practice, and I outline how this might happen.
Introduction
The accounting environment is marked by seemingly conflicting cross-paradigmatic debates and is complicated by certain research hypotheses that are neither of experience nor educated. The first objective of this paper is to allow accounting researchers to self-reflect on the prevailing assumptions they share and the consequences of taking this position. The second objective of this research is to find the alternate theories collections, to explain how they alter both the concepts and solutions of problems and to bring out research. Lastly, paper argues that these alternatives are not only different from world views, which can potentially broaden our horizon regarding the understanding of accounting practices.
Recent Classifications of Accounting Perspective
In order to perceive commonality amid theoretical diversity, one must examine the philosophical assumptions shared by theories. Comprehensive measurements have recently been suggested. For example, two researchers (Cooper, 1983) and the hopper and (Hopper & Powell, 1985) rely on (Burrell & Morgan, 1979) and they classify accounting literature on two main assumptions relating to social sciences and society. Assuming that the social sciences include assumptions about social world ontology. (Nominalism realism) and philosophy (including monotheistic ideograph) assumptions on the essence of culture as one of Burrell and Morgan’s fundamental behavioral contradictions or subjects (1979) culminated in four functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist and radical structuralist paradigms.
A classification of Assumptions
Every human knowledge is the social artefact, as it is a result of people ‘s constituent labor in trying to create and recreate their life and welfare (Habermus, 1978). People create knowledge for people, and it is about people and their social and physical setting. Accounting is no different which is illustrated by classifications of assumptions. As another empirically based discourse, it seeks to mediate the relationship between people, their needs and their environment (Tinker, 1975) and (Tinker & Lowe, 1977). And in mutual relationship, thought accounting is the living entity as it is changing itself and it is also the environmental and understanding of changes in their needs. Given this lack of mutual reciprocity between science and humanity, the physical world, knowledge production is constrained by man-made rules or beliefs that describe domain knowledge, scientific phenomena, and the relationship between both. In general, three sets of values define how the universe should be perceived and looked at. The first group of beliefs relevant to the concept of knowledge consists of three sets of: Second, there are assumptions about the study’s “topic,” and third, the examples given about the science-empirical world relationship.
Accounting thought
There are three types of accounting thought mentioned in the article are mainstream, interpretative and critical. Mainstream accounting is mostly use in the research of accounting and it relies on the methodology of natural science which tells that human beings are passive objects and they cannot create social realities. Germanic philosophy, which emphasizes the role of language, interpretation, and understanding in social science, derived the interpretative alternative assumption. As ( Schutz , 1962,1964,1966,1967) had been one of this thought’s most powerful supporters. Finally, critical accounting thought is created in order to nullify the weaknesses of both mainstream and interpretative accounting thought.
Mainstream accounting Limitations
In aspects of the theory-practical relationship, accounting researchers mainline demand is an end juxtaposition approach. Accountants should only deal with the fact that in terms of the meeting the information needs of the decision maker should be effective and efficient, and they should not indulge themselves with moral judgements which is about the decision making and the needs of the destinations. Many implications arise from a series of dominant assumptions. First, since the belief in the How-end dichotomy of accounting researchers takes the institutional structure of the current government, market, quality, and organizational forms as given and observed (Tinker, 1982). The second concerns assuming human intent, reason, and consensus. If a common intent of maximizing utility is tested, it was always the intention of the capital providers. It is widely agreed that all internal and external financial statements are designed to protect investors’ and creditors’ interests (Company Reports, 1975; AICPA, 1973) so that’s why accountants and auditors often prove that they operate in the public interest. A third issue of the prevailing belief set is the absence of contentious knowledge in the social science tradition that has challenged the principle of rationality and empirical testability. Writing the philosophy of empirical was widely accepted that observation is just a theory-dependent proposition and thus cannot serve as a sovereign entity between competing theories and it is all stated in the research paper of (Popper, 1972a) and then this argument is continued with the (Kuhn, 2012).
The Research Framework
Belief about knowledge
Mainstream perspective: Theory is separate from observations that might be used to verify a theory or falsify it. Hypothesized-deductive account for accepted scientific interpretation. Quantitative data analysis and collection methods that allow for desired generalization.
Interpretative perspective: Scientific reasons are being pursued for human intent. Their effectiveness is measured through the standards of logical consistency, subjective evaluation, and common-sense interpretation of actors. Ethnographic research, case studies, and participant observation are encouraged. In their daily environment actors learned. Case studies, researches related to ethnographic and participant observation are desired.
Critical perspective: The criteria used to judge theories are temporal and context based. Historical, researches related to ethnographic and case studies which are more commonly used in it.
Belief about physical and social reality
Mainstream perspective: Empirical evidence on the subject is objective and external. Humans are often described as passive objects; they will not be seen as creators of social reality. Single utility-maximization objective presumed for individuals and companies. Presumed mean-end rationality. Societies and organizations are stable; volatile disputes can be controlled by effective accounting control design. The belief in physical-realism claims, which is apart from man there is a universe of objective fact, dominated the main streams of accounting research. Moreover, it has a definitive meaning or substance can be understood while two big assumptions about the social environment are made in the field of social mainstream accounting. Firstly, human behavior is intentional. Secondly, it gives trust in the individual and organizational goals, and there is an underlying assumption of the regulated social conditions.
Interpretative perspective: Human truth is evolving, created subjectively, and objectivated by human experience. All behaviors have meaning and purpose that are retrospectively invested and based on social and historical patterns. Conflict is created by the rising social definitions schemes.
Critical perspective: Human beings have inner potentialities which are restricted by restrictive processes (prevented from complete emergence). Objects could only be explained by observing their historical evolution and transition within the context of relationships. Real relationships, which are transformed through subjective interpretation and reproduction, and objectives describes the empirical reality. Human purpose, reason, and agency are acknowledged, but with a belief in false consciousness and philosophy, this is objectively examined. Central to society is the fundamental conflict. Conflict occurs in the social, cultural, and political spheres because of inequality and ideology, that distort the creative aspect of people.
The relationship between theory and practice
Mainstream perspective: Accounting shall define means and not ends. Acceptation of existing institutional framework.
Interpretative perspective: Theory only seeks to clarify behavior and explain how social structure is created and replicated.
Critical perspective: Theory has one crucial objective: to define and eliminate domination and political activities.
(Ismail & Zainuddin, 2013)
Conclusion
This article tried to push accounting discussion beyond the standstill of a commensurate definition that cannot be rationally assessed. It stated that the concept of mainstream accounting is based on the set of common assumptions about knowledge and the empirical world, both enlightening and enslaving. Such premises provide some facts but they obscure others. New perspectives can be obtained by modifying them which will theoretically expand our understanding of accounting in practice across organizational and social contexts. There was talk of two key alternatives: the imperative and the critical. The difficulties faced by such alternatives are hoped to stimulate consideration and debate.
References
Schutz , A., 1962,1964,1966,1967. Collected papers. Volume 1,2,3.
Burrell , G. & Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
Cooper, D., 1983. Tidiness, muddle and things: Commonalities and divergencies in two approaches to management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(2-3), pp. 269-286.
Habermus, J., 1978. Knowledge and Human interest. 2nd ed. s.l.:Heinemann Educational Book Ltd..
Hopper, T. & Powell, A., 1985. MAKING SENSE OF RESEARCH INTO THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING: A REVIEW OF ITS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS. Journal of Management Studies, September, 22(5), pp. 429-465.
Ismail, K. & Zainuddin, S., 2013. RESEARCH PARADIGMS FOR ACCOUNTING: A REVIEW. Journal of Accounting Perspectives, Vol. 6,, December, Volume 6, pp. 50-56.
Kuhn, T. S., 2012. The structure of scientific revolution. 4th ed. s.l.:Univeristy of Chicago press.
Popper, K., 1972a. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. 3rd ed. s.l.:s.n.
Tinker, A., 1975. An accounting organization for organization problem solving.
Tinker, A., 1982. The naturalization of accounting: social ideology and genesis of agency theory.
Tinker, A. & Lowe, E., 1977. SITING THE ACCOUNTING PROBLEMATIC: TOWARDS AN INTELLECTUAL EMANCIPATION OF ACCOUNTING. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, September, 4(3), pp. 263-276.
