Suchergebnisse

This paper examines historical methodology and suggests ways accounting history may be made more relevant to contemporary accounting researchers. First there is a brief discussion of the "traditional" accounting history method, the documentary model, and an examination of history methodologies that offer alternatives modes of inquiry. This includes the pattern model and rhetorical analysis. This discussion is brief and focused on only issues examined in subsequent discussion of the empirical research. The discussion of the empirical research, including behavioral research, focuses on three issues: retrodiction, with examples concerning securities legislation; belief transference, with examples concerning the demand for auditing; and methodological transference, with examples from the behavioral literature including a discussion of the importance of historical context and sensitivity. The objectives are [1] to show how all researchers need to tell more plausible stories and how historical analyses can clarify and enhance understanding of the complex environment in which accountants function, [2] to suggest fruitful areas for future accounting historical/empirical/behavioral research and [3] to issue a call for diversity, tolerance, and a free exchange of ideas—stressing these as values that cannot be separated from accountants' research activity.

Is accounting a science of quantification, as many believe? We accountants provide the "bottom line", "performance evaluation numbers", "investment ratios", etc. These numbers have an impact on both society and our everyday lives. The corporate scandals of the late 1990's and early 2000's clearly demonstrate this impact. Ordinary citizens now realize that accounting is important and may affect their everyday lives. Porter (1992, 1995) argues that quantification as used (portrayed) in accounting obtains an aura of objectivity, which makes irrelevant any political and strategic overtones. We believe that most people view accounting as a merely technical discipline that reports economic "truths" about individuals, entities, and a host of managerial decisions. Our general research question is: how do people perceive characteristics of quantitative bits of evidence (including direct accounting information and other quantitative information) versus qualitative bits of evidence (including accounting information stated in a qualitative form and other qualitative information)? We believe there is a perception of objectivity related to all quantitative elements (especially accounting oriented data) as compared to comparable qualitative elements and this may bias decision makers toward accepting quantitative information as "factual" and non-contestable. That is, the information is not merely an input to a decision but leads to the representation of the decision output. We address the primary research question in an experiment utilizing a capital investment scenario and a performance evaluation scenario. The scenarios facilitate using multiple cues in the tasks. The Balanced Scorecard framework, as developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992), provides the concepts used to identify relevant cues. This allowed us to address a secondary research question concerning whether financial cues are weighted heavier than non-financial cues in these two scenarios. ; İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi