the present and future of accounting history
TRANSCRIPT
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability JournalThe present and future of accounting historyGarry D. Carnegie
Article information:To cite this document:Garry D. Carnegie , (2014),"The present and future of accounting history", Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 8 pp. 1241 - 1249Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2014-1715
Downloaded on: 09 October 2014, At: 20:31 (PT)References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 87 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Garry D. Carnegie, Garry D. Carnegie, Christopher J. Napier, (2012),"Accounting's past, present and future:the unifying power of history", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp. 328-369Garry D. Carnegie, Christopher J. Napier, (1996),"Critical and interpretive histories: insights intoaccounting’s present and future through its past", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9Iss 3 pp. 7-39Garry D. Carnegie, (2014),"Historiography for accounting: Methodological contributions, contributors andthought patterns from 1983 to 2012", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp.715-755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2013-1430
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 156759 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
The present and futureof accounting history
Garry D. CarnegieSchool of Accounting, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to outline some personal reflections, based on recentpublished accounting history research and methodological contributions, on the state of the art andfuture directions in interdisciplinary research on accounting’s past.Design/methodology/approach – An essay focusing on recent developments in the accountinghistory specialisation and outlining some possible future research developments.Findings – The paper points to the growing literature in the accounting history specialisation; theconduct of historical accounting research across an array of institutions, including business, social andreligious institutions; the diversity of theoretical perspectives which have been applied during thepast 15-20 years, essentially on the premise of accounting as social practice, and the prospects oftheoretically-informed investigations continuing to offer the greatest potential insight into bothaccounting’s present and future. Reflections rendered on possible future directions of historicalaccounting research may provide some motivation for future research or at least stimulate somediscussion and debate on the subject.Research limitations/implications – The analysis and critique represents the author’s perspectivesas a longstanding academic in the field.Originality/value – The paper may assist in generating some new ideas, topics and approaches forfuture historical accounting research in any given country or region and may even stimulate“comparative international accounting history” (CIAH) studies in different locations around the globe.
Keywords Accounting history, Interdisciplinary research, Methodologies, Theoretical perspectives,Specialisation
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionAccording to Carnegie and Napier (2012, p. 330), the “interdisciplinary” movementin accounting since the 1980s has been “the catalyst for the growth in historicalaccounting research”. Accounting history is recognised as a specialisation within theinterdisciplinary accounting research community, along with other research areassuch as public sector accounting, social and environment accounting, managementcontrol and organisational change (Guthrie and Parker, 2006). Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal (AAAJ), first published in 1988, has been at the forefrontof specialisation of the interdisciplinary accounting community. Special thematicissues of journals, for which AAAJ is regarded as exemplary (Carnegie, 2012), andconferences which promote major themes and highlight emerging research issuesand new agendas, such as the Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accountingconference series, have contributed to “the ongoing development of an array ofinterdisciplinary research areas” (Guthrie and Parker, 2006, p. 6). Accounting history isnot only a specialist research area in itself, but it also permeates the other specialisationswithin interdisciplinary accounting research where historical investigations areconducted to develop an understanding of the past and to at least potentially provide
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal
Vol. 27 No. 8, 2014pp. 1241-1249
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-3574
DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-05-2014-1715
The helpful comments provided on earlier versions of the paper by Delfina Gomes, ChristopherNapier, Lee Parker, Brian West and the anonymous referee are acknowledged with appreciation.
1241
Present andfuture of
accountinghistory
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
insight into both the present and the future. The aim of this paper is to provide somepersonal reflections on the state of the art and future directions in interdisciplinaryresearch in the accounting history specialisation.
The structure of this paper is as follows. The next section addresses a number ofissues related to the present state of the art in accounting history research andpublication. There follows a consideration of possible future directions in the field.Concluding comments appear in the final section.
The state of the artThe key interdisciplinary focus in historical accounting research derives from theapplication of an array of theoretical perspectives drawn from other disciplines, such associology, political and organisational theory, law and education. Such theories appealedto scholars from social science backgrounds and to other researchers who were open tothe notion that accounting is social practice, with consequences for human behaviour,rather than merely technical practice (Hopwood, 1983; Napier, 1989; Hopwood and Miller,1994; Miller, 1994; Gomes, 2008). As a consequence, accounting research became subjectto new theories and methods, moving the emphasis away from economics which hadtended to dominate accounting research to the 1980s (Carnegie and Napier, 2012).The umbrella term “new accounting history” (Miller et al., 1991) came to be applied todescribe this focus in interdisciplinary historical accounting research (also see Bertalanand Napier, 2013), which Carnegie and Napier (1996, p. 31) referred to as critical andinterpretive histories “grounded firmly in the archive”.
Since the mid to late 1980s, a diversity of theories has been applied in historicalaccounting research (see, e.g. Napier, 2006; Walker, 2008; Poullaos and Sian, 2010;Poullaos and Uche, 2012; Fleischman, 2013; Fleischman et al., 2013). Historical accountingresearchers have accepted a broad conception of what constitutes theorisation (a widelyrecognised framework that may be used to categorise theorisation in historical accountingresearch is the five levels of organisational theorising specified by Llewellyn (2003)comprising metaphor, differentiation, concepts, theorising settings and theorisingstructures). The use of theoretical perspectives has contributed within the past 15 to 20years to the study of accounting’s past in “everyday settings involving various social,religious and other not-for-profit institutions” (Carnegie and Napier, 2012, p. 336; also seeHopwood, 1994; Jeacle, 2009, 2012). Accounting researchers, however, are not known fordeveloping their own theories for use in interdisciplinary investigations of accountingpractice, thought and regulation. Instead accounting researchers, including accountinghistorians, have focused on using “established theories” as a key means of securingrecognition in the “mainstream”, rather than offering alternative theoretical lenses,although they may reinterpret existing theories. For instance, Foucauldiangovernmentality research in accounting history has been popular since the seminalwork of Miller and O’Leary (1987). Such research, however, has involved taking a broadconcept related to the control of citizens and applying it in the restricted context ofmanagement control involving the control of labour and related effects.
An interdisciplinary study is one that draws on more than one discipline and inpractice such research usually involves collaboration between researchers drawn fromat least two disciplines, who pool their knowledge and combine their backgrounds toexamine phenomena from a number of different perspectives. Accounting historianstend not to work regularly in such interdisciplinary teams as a feature of their researchorientation. Calls have been made from time to time, for instance, for accountinghistorians to work closely with business historians (see, e.g. Mathias, 1993; Ville and
1242
AAAJ27,8
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
Fleming, 1999/2000; Fridenson, 2007), however, limited endeavour in collaborativeresearch between accounting and business historians has been evident to date. Bisman(2011) showed that accounting historians publishing in the three specialist accountinghistory English language journals, namely Accounting Historians Journal, AccountingHistory and Accounting, Business and Financial History (now known as AccountingHistory Review) had relatively minimal engagement with periodicals beyondaccounting, such as Business History, Economic History and Business History Review.More recently, Gomes et al. (2011, p. 393) pointed to the need for accounting historians tocollaborate with scholars in other disciplines – “particularly, although not limited to, thosestudying the histories of finance, management, business and economics” – in mutuallybeneficial research. While such calls for greater inclusivity go unheeded, accountinghistory remains open to be described as a “myopic and introspective discipline”(Walker, 2005, p. 233).
Guthrie and Parker (2006, p. 5) argued that the accounting history specialistresearch group was “opting to retreat behind closed doors” (also see Walker, 2008).More specifically, Guthrie and Parker believed that “some [accounting historians]appear to be exhibiting a trend towards seeking their own company; focusing onattending only their specialist conferences and publishing their work in their specialinterest journals” (2006, p. 9). The situation they outlined, while undesirable to theextent that it occurs, tends to downplay another perception of accounting historians astypically broad-minded academics who, in seeking to augment an understanding ofaccounting’s past, may provide insight into contemporary and potential accountingdevelopments. Historical accounting researchers participate regularly at prominentgeneral accounting conferences and interdisciplinary accounting conferences,especially where accounting history is treated in conference programmes as aresearch specialisation rather than as a research method. To the extent that particularaccounting historians are not participating in such mainstream conferences, they areindeed actively encouraged “to return to the coming out parade!” (Guthrie and Parker,2006, p. 9). The accounting history specialist research group, however, now operateswithin a “disciplinary matrix” of a kind (Richardson, 2008), exhibiting a critical mass ofresearchers, associations or special interest groups, specialist journals, as well asdedicated conferences and colloquiums. The historiographic literature in the field is asymbol of the legitimacy of historical accounting research and indicative of its growingmaturity (Carnegie, 2014). The increasing proportion of women undertaking historicalaccounting research within the past 10 to 15 years or thereabouts, as is the case forother specialisms within accounting research, has positive implications for reflecting“feminist viewpoints and the voice of women” in the literature (Bisman, 2012, p. 20).
Apart from a growing maturity of the field, historical accounting research isproduced for publication in a wide array of accounting and other journals. Historicalaccounting research is published in prominent general accounting journals, such asAbacus, Accounting and Business Research, British Accounting Review and theEuropean Accounting Review, and in leading journals in the sociological, critical andinterpretive tradition, especially Accounting, Organizations and Society, AAAJ, andCritical Perspectives on Accounting and, of course, in specialist accounting historyjournals, including those identified above. From time to time, accounting historiansstraddle the dimensions of business/management history and accounting history andpublish their works in business and management history journals, such as BusinessHistory (Moerman et al., 2013) and Management & Organizational History (Maranet al., 2014). However, the venturing into these other historical journals has been more
1243
Present andfuture of
accountinghistory
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
occasional than regular. Recently, overarching histories of accounting have beenwritten by Gleeson-White (2011) and Soll (2014). Such sweeping accounts by historianswho have been drawn to the discipline broadly address the role of accounting inshaping kingdoms, nations, empires and civilisations.
Accounting history articles are often published in highly ranked journals, such asthose at A* or A (or similar high-level classification) depending on the country orregion involved. Articles by the same author or author teams may also be published inlower-ranked journals, with the quality of their work being assessed directly not by thequality of the work but by the perceived quality of the journals in which the articlesappear. Specialist journals in accounting, including those in the accounting education(Marriott et al., 2014) and accounting history (Anon, 2014) specialisations tend to beless favourably ranked by the rating agencies than general or interdisciplinaryaccounting journals. The latter higher volume journals publish a diversity of works oncontemporary accounting issues and topics as well as a typically smaller proportion ofarticles on accounting history. While the respective ranking of specialist accountingjournals against general/interdisciplinary accounting journals is problematic foraccounting historians and their institutions, the clear advice for historical accountingresearchers, irrespective of their publishing selections, is to strive to fully develop thequality and potential contribution of their research in a concerted bid to enhancethe overall standing of the specialisation, with positive implications for accountingresearch and publication generally.
How may this aim be realised? Gomes et al. (2011), in posing and answering thequestion: “Does accounting history matter?”, offered some clues. They indicated thataccounting historians may indeed fail in making accounting history matter if theydo not do all of the following: “(1) demonstrate the contemporary relevance/implicationsof accounting history scholarship; (2) proactively engage with other accountingresearchers and scholars from other disciplines; (3) write their research in an informativeand even in an engaging way; and (4) better develop and articulate their historicalmethodologies” (p. 392). While this list and the discussion provided of these pointsshould not be seen as exhaustive, the authors provide guidance for accounting historiansin undertaking historical accounting research projects. In addressing the question:“What is (accounting) history?”, and commenting, in part, on the optimism of Fleischmanand Radcliffe (2005) who addressed “the roaring nineties” in the specialisation, Gaffikin(2011, p. 235) reflected concerns over the extent to which “the work of accountinghistorians ‘matches’ the developments in general history”. His views are based on the“acceptance of the association of accounting history to general history [y] [as]a necessary first step that precedes any discussion of accounting historiography”(Gaffikin, 2011, p. 238). The tendency for accounting history authors to not clearly orfully articulate the underlying methodology of the research undertaken constitutesa shortcoming to be addressed (Gaffikin, 2011; Gomes et al., 2011; Carnegie, 2014).
Future directionsHopwood (1983) advocated the study of accounting “in the contexts in which it operates”.Rather than “detaching accounting from its organisational setting” (Hopwood, 1983,p. 288), historical and contemporary accounting researchers were effectively encouragedto view accounting not as an end in itself but as a means to an end. It is enacted to servespecific purposes. Accounting is indeed an integral part of governance, accountability,sustainability and other controlling/monitoring processes or regimes, however, describedin the past. It is not an “independent art”; rather, accounting “can shape, mould and even
1244
AAAJ27,8
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
play a role in constructing the setting in which it forms a part” (Hopwood, 1983, p. 288).Accounting, therefore, has consequences for organisational and social functioningand development. Accordingly, present and future accounting historians are encouragedto conduct critical and interpretive histories of the nature, role, uses and impacts ofaccounting within its organisational and social contexts across all organisational forms.While a descriptive “technical analysis” of an “old dusty ledger” unearthed from thedepths of an archive may be of much interest to the finder, investigating the storybehind the accounts within the contexts in which that book was prepared offers atleast potentially more interest and significance under the conception of accountingas social practice.
There is a solid foundation of published accounting history research on which tobuild, but the literature tends to exhibit a lack of synthesis from a cross-national orinternational perspective. Historical accounting research tends to be set in specificorganisations or around specific individuals or about particular rules or regulations,and it is centred on a particular place, such as a town or city, territory, state or country.From time to time, edited works on accounting history are prepared by prominentaccounting historians on designated topics or themes, which provide some synthesis ofthe literature (see, e.g. Edwards and Walker, 2009; Fleischman et al., 2013).Considerable scope exists, however, for telling stories of accounting’s past from aglobal perspective. Comparative historical research in accounting aims to identify,explain and interpret differences and similarities between phenomena in differentcontexts (see, e.g. Auyeung, 2002; Carnegie and Napier, 2002; Fleischman et al., 2008)and such studies may provide insight into the difficulties of present-day proposalstowards the international harmonisation of accounting and auditing regulation (see,e.g. Baker, 2014). The “comparative international accounting history” (CIAH)approach, as proposed by Carnegie and Napier (1996, 2002), involves the use of ananalytical framework in cross-national investigations of accounting development,based on a set of dimensions that could be identified as the “seven Ps” (i.e. period,places, people, practices, propagation, products and profession). CIAH is intended toprovide a means of both undertaking research on a wider geographical frontage anddrawing together threads of the existing dispersed historical accounting literature forsynthesis purposes. Such research may also offer prospects for enhanced funding ofhistorical accounting research by external funding agencies located around the globein the era of “performance-measured” research outputs and rankings of departments,faculties and universities.
Opportunities for historical research in accounting around the globe are abundant.There remain many under-developed or even under-explored topics and issues in thehistorical accounting literature. Special issues of journals provide a means for editorsand guest editors to contribute in positive ways to innovation in research and theaugmentation of the literature on the themes identified for further investigation. Forexample, recent calls for papers of special thematic issues on accounting’s pastannounced by Accounting History include “Accounting’s past in sport” and“Accounting and charities in historical perspective”, while Accounting HistoryReview has announced special issues on “History of accounting and the hospital” and“Histories of accounting and agriculture”. Such special issues contribute to extendingan understanding of the reach of accounting in historical contexts into domains thathave been subject to little investigation by accounting historians. Apart from underexplored topics or issues within the specialisation, there are also underutilisedapproaches in conducting historical accounting research, such as autobiographies and
1245
Present andfuture of
accountinghistory
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
prosopography (or “collective biography”) while considerable opportunities existfor more research studies to be undertaken using oral history (or oral evidence) and“cliometrics” (or econometric history) (Carnegie and Napier, 2012). Scope also exists,according to Parker (2004, p. 22), “for the pluralisation of our approaches to time”.Alternatives the author identified to the unidirectional linear concept of chronologicaltime include the co-present, cyclical, relativist, structuralist and spatial time.
In reflecting on the future of interdisciplinary accounting research in general,Guthrie and Parker (2014, p. 7) stated that “the challenge is to oppose the driversof mediocrity and conformity at all levels”. They outlined the need “to develop and beopen to a wider range of methodologies, theoretical perspectives, data sourcesand disciplinary traditions than we are currently” (2014, p. 7). Such are the tools whichare necessary to assist in moving interdisciplinary accounting researchers closerto a fuller and richer understanding of accounting’s positioning and impactswithin organisations and societies around the globe, both within contemporary andhistorical contexts.
ConclusionAccounting has a long and diverse past and is a key component of organisational andsocial life. While accounting – such as when represented as sets of key performanceindicators – is a technical practice involving recording, measuring and interpreting, itis also social practice, as what is measured influences the objectives and relatedbehaviours of individuals and, in the process, produces intended and unintendedimpacts on organisational and social functioning and development. Drawing on thearchive, understood not merely as computerised data bases of accounting numbers butmore widely as all the traces left behind by individuals and organisations, historicalaccounting research, elucidated by theoretical perspectives, offers considerable scopeto provide insight into contemporary accounting and potential future developments inaccounting practice and ideas (Carnegie and Napier, 1996). Historical accountingscholars, therefore, are encouraged to illuminate the intersection of accounting historyscholarship with contemporary accounting policy, regulation, practice and thought andto elucidate how accounting and accounting change may impact upon all of us in ourdaily lives or even constrain our futures. Better appreciating how accounting hasshaped the past may permit a better understanding of the implications of accountingand accounting change today, both in organisations of any genre and in society ingeneral. In short, scholars in the specialisation are called upon to identify and evaluatecontemporary connections and relevance.
According to Carnegie and Napier (2012, pp. 353-354) “if we ignore the historicalperspective, current accounting practice and ideas appear rootless, evanescent andarbitrary. Accounting also appears purely technical, the arena of accountants ratherthan of policy-makers or indeed of society more generally”. Conceptualising andtreating accounting as a technical practice alone without any pertinent or relevanthistory to be explored and told would be an unpalatable position in which to be placed.It would also be a shaky foundation in this era of calculative order for contemplatingthe future of accounting, and of our organisations and also of society in general.Accordingly, the accounting history specialisation has a worthwhile future to unfold.Collectively adopting strategies to deal proactively with existing limitations andshortcomings within the specialisation is a sound way of ensuring that such potentialis realised. Fostering engagement of accounting historians with diverse groups ofscholars remains an imperative in developing the specialisation.
1246
AAAJ27,8
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
References
Anon (2014), “Accounting history Symposium, Parma, Italy, November 29, 2013”, TheAccounting Historians Notebook, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 9-10.
Auyeung, P.K. (2002), “A comparative study of accounting adaptation: China and Japan duringthe nineteenth century”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 1-30.
Baker, C.R. (2014), “A comparative analysis of the development of the auditing profession in theUnited Kingdom and France”, Accounting History, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 97-114.
Bertalan, N. and Napier, C.J. (2013), “The emergence of the ‘new accounting history’ ”, workingpaper, School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, July.
Bisman, J. (2011), “Cite and seek: exploring accounting history through citation analysis ofthe specialist accounting history journals, 1996 to 2008”, Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 161-183.
Bisman, J.E. (2012), “Surveying the landscape: the first 15 years of accounting history as aninternational journal”, Accounting History, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Carnegie, G.D. (2012), “The special issue: AAAJ and research innovation”, Accounting, Auditing& Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 216-227.
Carnegie, G.D. (2014), “Historiography for accounting: methodological contributions, contributorsand thought patterns from 1983 to 2012”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,Vol. 27 No. 4, forthcoming.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (1996), “Critical and interpretive histories: insights intoaccounting’s present and future through its past”, Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 7-39.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (2002), “Exploring comparative international accounting history”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 689-718.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (2012), “Accounting’s past, present and future: the unifying powerof history”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 328-369.
Edwards, J.R. and Walker, S.P. (Eds) (2009), The Routledge Companion to Accounting History,Routledge, London, pp. 30-49.
Fleischman, R.K. (2013), “A review of critical histories of accounting”, in Fleischman, R.K.,Funnell, W. and Walker, S.P. (Eds), Critical Histories of Accounting: Sinister Inscriptions inthe Modern Era, Routledge, New York, NY and Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 15-54.
Fleischman, R.K. and Radcliffe, V.S. (2005), “The roaring nineties: accounting history comes ofage”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 61-109.
Fleischman, R.K., Boyns, T. and Tyson, T. (2008), “The search for standard costing in theUnited States and Britain”, Abacus, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 341-376.
Fleischman, R.K., Funnell, W. and Walker, S.P. (Eds) (2013), Critical Histories of Accounting:Sinister Inscriptions in the Modern Era, Routledge, New York, NY and Abingdon, Oxon,pp. 15-54.
Fridenson, P. (2007), “The bilateral relationship between accounting history and businesshistory: a French perspective”, Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 17 No. 3,pp. 375-380.
Gaffikin, M. (2011), “What is (accounting) history?”, Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 3,pp. 235-251.
Gleeson-White, J. (2011), Double Entry: How the Merchants of Venice Shaped the Modern Worldand How their Invention could Make or Break the Planet, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Gomes, D. (2008), “The interplay of conceptions of accounting and schools of thought inaccounting history”, Accounting History, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 479-509.
1247
Present andfuture of
accountinghistory
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
Gomes, D., Carnegie, G.D., Napier, C.J., Parker, L.D. and West, B. (2011), “Does accounting historymatter?”, Accounting History, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 389-402.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L. (2006), “Editorial: the coming out of accounting research specialisms”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 5-16.
Guthrie, J. and Parker, L.D. (2014), “Editorial: the global accounting academic: what counts!”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 2-14.
Hopwood, A.G. (1983), “On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 287-305.
Hopwood, A.G. (1994), “Accounting and everyday life: an introduction”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 299-301.
Hopwood, A.G. and Miller, P. (Eds) (1994), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jeacle, I. (2009), “Accounting and everyday life: towards a cultural context for accountingresearch”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 120-136.
Jeacle, I. (2012), “Accounting and popular culture: framing a research agenda”, Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 580-601.
Llewellyn, S. (2003), “What counts as ‘theory’ in qualitative management and accountingresearch? Introducing five levels of theorizing”, Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 662-708.
Maran, L., Castellini, M. and Bisman, J. (2014), “Peter Leopold’s Reform of Tuscany (1774):management, organization and regulation at the local level”, Management &Organizational History, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 26-44.
Marriott, N., Stoner, G., Fogarty, T. and Sangster, A. (2014), “Publishing characteristics,geographic dispersion and research traditions of recent international accounting educationresearch”, British Accounting Review, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890838914000298 (accessed 6 May 2014).
Mathias, P. (1993), “Business history and accounting history: a neighbourly relationship”,Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 253-273.
Miller, P. (1994), “Accounting as social and institutional practice: an introduction”, in Hopwood, A.G.and Miller, P. (Eds), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp. 1-39.
Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (1987), “Accounting and the construction of the governable person”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 235-265.
Miller, P., Hopper, T. and Laughlin, R. (1991), “The new accounting history: an introduction”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 395-403.
Moerman, L., van der Laan, S. and Campbell, D. (2013), “A tale of two asbestos giants: corporatereports as (auto) biography”, Business History, available at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00076791.2013.848857#preview (accessed 6 May 2014).
Napier, C.J. (1989), “Research directions in accounting history”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 21No. 3, pp. 237-254.
Napier, C.J. (2006), “Accounts of change: 30 years of historical accounting research”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 Nos 4/5, pp. 445-507.
Parker, L.D. (2004), “Presenting’ the past: perspectives on time for accounting and managementhistory”, Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Poullaos, C. and Sian, S. (Eds) (2010), Accountancy and Empire: The British Legacy ofProfessional Organisation, Routledge, New York, NY and London.
Poullaos, C. and Uche, C.U. (2012), “Accounting professionalisation in developing countries”,in Hooper, T., Tsamenyi, M., Uddin, S. and Wickramasinghe, D. (Eds), Handbook of Accountingand Development, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Gloucester, pp. 74-94.
1248
AAAJ27,8
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
Richardson, A.J. (2008), “Strategies in the development of accounting history as an academicdiscipline”, Accounting History, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-280.
Soll, J. (2014), The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Rise and Fall of Nations, BasicBooks, New York, NY.
Ville, S. and Fleming, G. (1999/2000), “Desperately seeking synergy: interdisciplinary research inaccounting and business history”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 11 Nos 1/2, pp. 173-180.
Walker, S.P. (2005), “Accounting in history”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2,pp. 233-259.
Walker, S.P. (2008), “Innovation, convergence and argument without end in accounting history”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 296-322.
About the author
Garry D. Carnegie is a Professor of Accounting and the Head of School, School of Accounting,RMIT University. Professor Carnegie has been employed in the Australian higher educationsector since 1985 and, prior to joining RMIT University in mid-2010, he held full-time roles as aFull Professor at Deakin University, Melbourne University Private/The University of Melbourne,and at the University of Ballarat. Professor Carnegie’s current research is broadly concernedwith governance and accountability from both contemporary and historical perspectives.Since 2008, he has been Joint Editor of Accounting History having been the journal’s Editorbetween 1996 and 2007, and is the author of Case Studies: Financial Accounting and Disclosure.Professor Garry D. Carnegie can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
1249
Present andfuture of
accountinghistory
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Lee D. Parker, James Guthrie. 2014. Addressing directions in interdisciplinary accounting research.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27:8, 1218-1226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Dow
nloa
ded
by D
rexe
l Uni
vers
ity A
t 20:
31 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
(PT
)