Roslender & Dillard - Reflection On The Interdisiplianary....

Critical Perspectives on Accounting (2003) 14, 325–351
doi:10.1016/cpac.2002.0526
REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERDISCIPLINARY

PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING PROJECT∗
ROBIN ROSLENDER†§ AND J ESSE F. D ILLARD‡ ¶
† Faculty of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK and
‡ School of Accounting, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816,
USA
The purpose of the interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting (IPA) project is

to have an impact on the theory and practice of accounting as well as the
surrounding social processes. The following discussion outlines the birth and
maturation of the contemporary IPA project and concludes that the undertaking
is divided along methodological, philosophical, and ideological lines. In addressing
these issues, we propose to clarify and differentiate the nature and purpose of
the contemporary IPA and critical accounting projects. The interdisciplinary work is
directed generally toward a more complete understanding of accounting theory
and practice and of the broader social institution of accountancy. The purpose
of interdisciplinary studies is to heighten the awareness of those parties who are
implicated in its enactment. The critical accounting project is viewed as a subset of
the interdisciplinary project and provides a focus for those who wish to devise an
approach that consciously privileges the linkage of knowledge to the pursuit of a
radical political process. Whatever labels are employed, it must be recognized that
though participants in the interdisciplinary project might disagree as to its source,
intensity, and influence, the totalizing influence of hegemonic power is present in
society and the world. This is so whether one classifies that world as modern or
postmodern, or whether we see change as possible on a global level or only within
some local sphere; issues of human rights, human dignity, and the human condition
must be of central concern. Regardless of the interdisciplinary origin or grounding,
we must continually affirm a commitment to a more socially responsible institution
of accountancy. In our view, the critical accounting project provides a focus for those
who wish to devise an approach to accounting studies that consciously privileges
the realization of the philosophy of praxis. Those who choose the critical accounting
project must recognize, however, that without an ever expanding interdisciplinary
horizon, the critical project is likely to degenerate either into tyranny or quietism.
"
c 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
∗ A previous version of this paper was presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference,
CUNY—Baruch, New York, April 1999.
§ E-mail: [email protected]
¶ E-mail: [email protected]
Received 23 August 2000; revised 16 March 2001; accepted 4 November 2001
325
1045–2354/03/ $ - see front matter "
c 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
326 R. Roslender and J. F. Dillard
Introduction
The relationship between the critical accounting project and the interdisciplinary
perspectives on accounting (IPA) project is not well understood, either by most
of those who do not work within them, or by many who do. As a consequence,
the terms critical accounting and IPA tend to be used interchangeably. For
example, Lodh and Gaffikin (1997) point out the diversity in what they label
as “critical accounting studies”, identifying ten alternative theoretical approaches
ranging from symbolic interactionism to Marxist political economy as well as
poststructuralism/postmodernism. All are interdisciplinary; few are critical. In our
view this is to the serious detriment of those who have made a commitment to the
critical accounting project as an attempt to fashion a critical theory for accounting,
one that readily embraces the necessity for active political engagement in the pursuit
of beneficial change. It might be argued that those who are committed to the critical
accounting project have much to gain from not being recognized as espousing
a political agenda. Research funding, for example, may be easier to secure
from stakeholders less acquainted with the detailed topography of interdisciplinary
accounting research. Any such gains, however, must be set against the consequent
loss of integrity attendant upon cynically exploiting the ambiguity that continues to
surround these interlocking projects. The purpose of the following discussion is,
therefore, twofold. The first is to provide an intellectual history of the contemporary
IPA project in its broad generality. In the light of this history, and in particular the
growing diversity on display, we seek to identify (and to privilege) what is commonly
referred to as the critical accounting project. The second is to reclaim the critical
accounting project, and to explore further the meaning and potential of an enabling
accounting.
From one perspective it can be argued that all accounting research is at its
core interdisciplinary in that it draws its theory and methodology from other
disciplines1 . Since its inception as an academic discipline, economics has provided
the theoretical base for accounting research. Consideration of the non-economic, or
non-technical, aspects of accounting was always an exclusive and well controlled
domain. Although regarded by many as rather inconsequential, the non-economic
aspects of accounting in turn remained largely closed to those who might wish
to see such endeavours extended into more controversial and socially engaged
areas. As the demand for the analytical rigour of the physical sciences began to
encroach upon economics, and therefore accounting, interdisciplinary undertakings
that did not possess the requisite level of analytical or experimental rigour became
relegated to a non-legitimate status, and thereby excluded from the major research
publications. To the extent that the sterility of financial economics has become
more apparent, if not actually acknowledged by those who profess it, the pressure
for excluding interdisciplinary work intensifies. Thus from the outset, research
perspectives beyond that of neo-classical economics have been, and continue to
be, viewed unfavourably by those who constitute the gatekeepers of accounting
knowledge2 .
Financial economics dominates mainstream accounting research in the US.
Few, if any, alternatives are recognized as legitimate. Financial economics based
Interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting project 327
research is seen as more rigorous and scientific, thus deserving privileged

treatment. All is assumed to be captured within production functions, utility curves,
and efficient markets. Market determinism has carried the field. Questioning the
status quo is an anathema to the current gatekeepers of accounting knowledge.
Consequently as the contemporary, more sociologically based, IPA project takes a
less traditional and in some instances more radical turn, opposition becomes more
intransigent. Viewing accounting as both a consequence of, and an active agent
within, a dynamic and contested social world coupled with a proclivity for change is
seen as at best unscientific and at worse subversive.
At its base, the contemporary IPA project was a reaction to the positivist and
functionalist orientations, and their attendant motivations, identified within the more
mature social sciences as underpinning mainstream research and scholarship. The
critical accounting project was a particular reaction motivated by emancipatory
objectives. We identify the origins of the critical accounting project in the 1970s
with Tony Lowe and a related group of scholars associated with the University
of Sheffield. We follow the development of the critical accounting project and
its apparent merger into the interdisciplinary accounting project, and discuss the
implications thereof. As part of the discussion, we also consider the larger social
context within which these events were taking place, the project’s links with
both critical sociology and Critical Theory, and the various ways that the critical
accounting project differs from parallel sub-projects. We conclude that it is important
to differentiate between the interdisciplinary and critical accounting projects, the
latter being a subset of the former. It is our opinion that the passion and energy of the
critical accounting project is directly related to the associated political programme,
or lack thereof, and we are therefore troubled by the motivations of those who wish
to be identified as critical accountants but who have no inclination to be associated
with the political dimension of the project.
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting
Interdisciplinary defined
At its simplest, the IPA project entails viewing accounting through the lens of
another discipline. This said, to draw a distinction between accounting research
and interdisciplinary, in a general sense, accounting research has no meaning.
Interdisciplinarity has been a hallmark of academic accounting research in that
theories and methodologies are “borrowed” from other disciplines. Since its in-
ception, economics, and primarily neo-classical economics, has been the source
of concepts such as value or wealth, providing the foundations of contemporary
accounting technique and thus the basis for discussing and evaluating alterna-
tives (Hendriksen & Van Breda, 1992). A more useful categorization is between
economics based research and everything else, where the “everything” else is
designated as interdisciplinary. Within the category of interdisciplinary based
research it is possible to differentiate between the genre of studies that embrace
a broadly objectivist/positivist, or “functionalist” perspective of enquiry, i.e. history,
philosophy, political science, social psychology, organizational behaviour, contin-

gency theory, functionalist sociology, and those that eschew this formerly dominant
ontological perspective in favour of some variant of “postfunctionalist” enquiry, i.e.
social constructionism, interactionism, political economy, radical humanism, Critical
Theory3 . It is this latter designation with which we are concerned, and that we
understand to constitute the contemporary, in the sense of developments that date
back to the mid-1970s, IPA project. It is as a subset of these developments that we
designate the critical perspectives on accounting (CPA) project.
Precontemporary interdisciplinary accounting research
Traditionally, the non-technical means, or lens, for viewing accounting was

principally historical, philosophical, or political. For many years senior accounting
academics have pursued research of this sort for the purpose of publication in
learned journals and as texts. In these activities they were sometimes joined by
their counterparts from the accountancy profession, to form a small but influential
minority of accounting scholars. As a result a literature on the history of accounting
(e.g. Littleton, 1933; Garner, 1954), the philosophy of accounting (Paton, 1922;
Mautz & Sharaf, 1961), and the politics of accounting (Scott, 1933) was in place
long before the advent of the contemporary interdisciplinary project a quarter of a
century ago. The levels of scholarship that characterized these endeavours, and the
quality of the insights on offer, have been and remain exemplary. Nevertheless, they
embody a relatively unsophisticated model of interdisciplinary work. Their single
(other) disciplinary foundation results in them being one dimensional in emphasis.
At the same time, a seeming disassociation from accounting practice resulted in
much of this work becoming viewed as contributing supplementary rather than
complementary knowledges.
Behavioural accounting as the first interdisciplinary programme for accounting
The seeming disassociation does not hold in the case of a further precontemporary
development from the mid-1950s with the application of psychology within the
accounting domain. From the outset (Argyris, 1952), the attempt to view accounting
through the lens of psychology, primarily social and organizational psychology,
evidenced a new phase in interdisciplinary accounting research. Rather than
seeking to fashion a psychology of accounting, the aim was to enroll psychology
in order to enhance accounting practice, especially in the context of the business
enterprise or large scale organization. Psychology for accounting was employed in
an effort to create a “better” accounting practice, initially being most evident in the
evolution of the management accounting subdiscipline of management control. For
example, while it is possible to understand budgetary control, divisional performance
measurements, or managerial reward systems in a technical accounting way, it is
their behavioural aspects that are more intriguing and important. By the late 1960s,
behavioural accounting was not only becoming a well regarded area of accounting
scholarship; it was also seen as necessary to teach accounting students about
these non-technical aspects of “real life” organizational practices in order to better
equip them for their ensuing careers. By the early 1970s, behavioural accounting
research held sway as the dominant interdisciplinary perspective, and was primarily
centred in the US4 .
Enter sociology
While behavioural accounting unquestionably broke new ground, its psychology

foundations ensured that all it ultimately provided was a further (alleged) objectivist,
value neutral perspective on accounting. The promise of fashioning a genuine
alternative was held out by the discipline of sociology5 . During the 1960s sociology
had been the site for a momentous debate about the appropriate methodology
for social scientific enquiry, as well being increasingly informed by the social
and political turmoil that characterized that decade. When a small group of
interdisciplinarily and politically oriented accounting scholars turned to sociology
in the mid-1970s, they encountered a rejuvenated discipline. While professional
sociology continued to advance in the US, the discipline’s leading edge had now
returned to Europe. There was significant interest in developing what might be
referred to in generic terms as a critical sociology, closely associated with Marxist
theory and the related Critical Theory tradition of the Frankfurt School, which itself is
distinguished by its multidisciplinary, metatheoretical perspective on society. There
was also a resurgence of interest among European sociologists in Marxist political
economy, a tradition in which a multidisciplinary perspective is equally fundamental.
Despite the persistence of major divisions with regard to the practical politics of
any critical sociology, its metadisciplinary status was now restored. In this way,
the sociological perspective embraced elements of history, philosophy, and politics,
and had a place for psychology, and more besides including economics, systems
thinking, linguistics, etc. Bringing this to bear on accounting (and more widely
among the management disciplines) promised to move the IPA project on to a
new plane.
Enrolling Sociology
Sociology’s metadisciplinary perspective was probably what initially attracted the

interest of those who first sought to include it in the set of other ways of viewing
accounting, particularly the group of scholars based at the University of Sheffield
in the UK. In retrospect they were clearly not interested in constructing a sociology
of accounting as a complement to its history, philosophy, and politics6 . There are
grounds for concluding that some in the vanguard, including Tony Lowe and Tony
Tinker, found their way to sociology via an interest in management control and its
organizational psychology underpinnings. By the time the management control sub-
discipline had begun to take shape within accounting, the study of organizations
had itself become more widely informed by a combination of systems thinking and
sociological insights. Contingency theory as one powerful manifestation of this new
approach to organizational analysis was very prominent in the late 1960s (Lawrence
& Lorsch, 1967; Pugh & Hickson, 1976; Pugh & Hinings, 1976). In time it was to have
a major impact on management control research, giving rise to the organizational

perspective as a complement to the founding psychological emphasis of the sub-
discipline. The establishment, in 1976, of the journal Accounting, Organizations
and Society (AOS) contributed to the rapid advance of the emergent contingency
paradigm, one that is still largely unchanged and widely subscribed to, particularly in
the US. As with organizational psychology a decade earlier, a contingency approach
to management accounting held out the promise of being able to furnish a better
understanding of the problems associated with real-life accounting practice. That it
did not claim to provide a stock of solutions, being based on the axiom that there
are no such solutions available “off the shelf”, only served to heighten the appeal of
continuing this particular interdisciplinary excursion.
Critical sociology
Burrell and Morgan (1979) describe contingency theory as an example of

functionalist sociology. This was precisely the genre of sociological thinking that
many younger 1960s sociologists had sought to rebut. They were committed to the
idea of developing a more radical approach to their discipline, commensurate with
the idea of critical sociology. In the context of organizational analysis, or what Burrell
and Morgan refer to as radical organization theory, the intention was to develop
insights about the way in which the organization was simultaneously structured
by and contributed to the reproduction of the prevailing social arrangements. The
prevailing social arrangements were represented as being both unsatisfactory
and unsustainable in the long term, fully deserving the “critique” that a critical
sociology provided. Lowe and Tinker’s mid-1970s explorations in progressive
systems theory can be understood in this light. There is evidence of an interest in
management control systems (Lowe & Tinker, 1977a), and in the possible purchase
of sociological contingency theory (Tinker & Lowe, 1978). However, in Lowe and
Tinker (1977b), it is the methodology of accounting itself that is subjected to critical
scrutiny. They describe the aims of their paper as
. . . “myth exploding” or ideological demystification . . . question[ing] whether accountants
do not require to consider whether they have a recognisable ideological position, and if so,
its influence upon the direction of the development of the subject (Lowe & Tinker, 1977b,
p. 264).
At the same time, in association with Hoogvelt, Tinker was engaging directly with
Marxist theory (Hoogvelt & Tinker, 1977a,b, 1978). Recently Tinker has identified
these latter papers as contributing to the emergence in the UK of “Marxist oriented
critical accounting research” (Tinker, 2000). His subsequent advocacy of a political
economy of accounting perspective confirms that, in Tinker’s view at least, it was
necessary to enroll a distinctly radical, Marxist theory based sociological perspective
(Tinker, 1980; see also Cooper, 1980; Tinker et al., 1982; Cooper & Sherer,
1984), although a concurrent contribution with Lowe is noticeably more guarded
(Tinker & Lowe, 1980). Related but following a bit later, Hopper and Armstrong
with other colleagues7 were advocating and employing labour process theory8 in
understanding how accounting, especially managerial accounting, was implicated
in the capitalist labour process.
Interpretive sociology
It was never the case that in the 1960s and early 1970s every sociologist
became a convert to critical sociology. The initial challenge to the hegemony of
functionalist sociology in general, and Parson’s social systems theory in particular,
came from sociologists who were persuaded of the value of developing sociology
as a genuinely social science rather than one that sought to fashion itself on
the natural scientific model. In Weber’s interpretive sociology, they had a long
established alternative to the nomothetic excesses of three generations of US
sociologists. There had always been a sizable minority interested in understanding
society from a bottom-up perspective, or more ideographically. By the early 1960s
there was growing support for the symbolic interactionist variant of interpretive
sociology (Becker, 1963; Goffman, 1969). Schutz’s phenomenological excursions in
the methodology of sociology were to find effect in Berger and Luckmann’s (1967)
advocacy of a social constructionist perspective, while the symbolic interactionists
Glaser and Strauss (1967) advocated the adoption of a grounded theory approach
to sociological theorization. In the UK, Silverman’s action frame of reference
perspective on organizations became increasingly influential (Silverman, 1970), as
organizational analysis was progressively colonized by sociological thinking (Burrell
& Morgan, 1979; Clegg & Dunkerley, 1980).
It was to this interpretive paradigm of organizational analysis, rather than critical
sociology, that a second group of interdisciplinarily oriented accounting researchers
turned in their efforts to understand accounting in its organizational context. The
lack of any detailed corpus of knowledge on how accounting actually functions
in organizations, or how accounting systems function in action (Hopwood, 1978),
was identified by Burchell et al. (1980) as one of the most serious shortcomings of
contemporary accounting research. The authors called for an extensive programme
of detailed case studies based in large part on a sociological perspective:
Scholars of the behavioural in accounting, for instance, would have to be prepared to

move beyond the social psychological perspectives which have dominated their inquiries
to date. In searching for the organizational and social significance rather than the human
use of their craft they would have to be willing to confront those uncertainties which still
characterize our knowledge of organizational behaviour and social action. Consideration
would have to be given to the roles which information and accounting play in the political
processes which characterize organizational and social life, to those forces which have
constituted the organization as we know it and to the ways in which the social and the
organization in accounting intertwine with each other (Burchell et al., 1980, p. 23).
The case for such inquiries, and for a further sociologization of accounting research,
was reinforced in Tomkins et al. (1980), and by Colville’s stunning 1981 critique of
the behavioural accounting tradition, followed in turn by the appeal by Tomkins and
Groves (1983) for interpretive research. The insights on offer in sociology infused
case studies soon confirmed the prescience of these researchers (e.g. Rosenberg
et al., 1982; Covaleski & Dirsmith, 1983).
This sociologization process should be viewed in the light of the changes taking
place both in society and in the accounting academy. The new perspectives now
being so enthusiastically explored by sections of the accounting academy reflected
the upheavals of the 1960s when many of the traditional institutions were being
challenged and in some cases overturned9 . By the later 1970s, however, much
of this momentum had dissipated, as the failures of radical programmes were
becoming apparent (Harman, 1988). Political disillusionment and economic chaos
brought about by stagflation and an energy crisis in the West were preparing the way
for a major conservative backlash in both the US and the UK, and the reaffirmation
of capitalist hegemony legitimated by neo-classical economic libertarian ideology.
The governments of the two countries soon advocated programmes of elimination
or privatization (corporatization) of many of the state’s responsibilities. Good
public sector management subsequently became defined in terms of good private
sector management. The academy was particularly affected both budgetarily and
managerially. Within the US accounting academy, the ground was being laid for
the impending dominance of financial economics as the basis for mainstream
accounting research10 .
To summarize, the contemporary IPA project emerged in the mid-1970s as
a further phase in the long established tradition of exploring the non-technical
aspects of accounting, employing the lens of another discipline. A predominantly
UK development, its defining feature was a growing reliance on the metadisciplinary
perspective afforded by sociology, including, but not exclusively that of, critical
sociology. Consequently, the contemporary perspective was very different from its
immediate predecessor, behavioural accounting, and the emergent mainstream
financial economics paradigm, both of which had their origins in the US. While
some within behavioural accounting were comfortable to gravitate to the more
sociologically informed interdisciplinary project, the majority worked to reformulate
the former development in the image of social psychology or financial economics.
In the following section we consider the continued development, and further
diversification of the contemporary IPA project in the 1980s.
Up Where We Belong
Between 1981 and 1984 the pages of AOS, now confirmed as the principal vehicle
worldwide for scholarship on the behavioural, organizational, and social aspects of
accounting, were peppered with many seminal contributions to a rapidly ascendant
IPA project. The UK was confirmed as the home of the project, with the Sheffield
school continuing to play a major role in its development and wider diffusion11 . It
was now apposite to stage a major international conference that would bring the
main figures in the project together for the first time, at least since the 1979 UCLA
conference organized in association with AOS by the recently relocated Tinker.
Many of the UK participants, including several sociologists, were by now reasonably
well acquainted with each other through earlier labour process conferences, and
the Management Accounting Research Group, an on-going seminar sponsored
by the (then) Institute of Cost and Management Accountants and the Institute of
Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The organizers of the conference,
not surprisingly, were two relatively young members of faculty, both with Sheffield
school links, both strong supporters of sociological contributions in accounting
research, with equally strong critical accounting convictions, David Cooper and
Trevor Hopper.
These were interesting times in the UK for many social scientists, including
like-minded accounting scholars. Having secured a second term of office on the
back of victory in the Falklands conflict of 1982, the Conservative party had been
successful in defeating the mineworkers’ union in 1984 following an ugly dispute
that saw the industry literally decimated by the end of the decade. Cooper and
Hopper, together with Lowe, had themselves become embroiled in this dispute
(Berry et al., 1985a,b; Hopper et al., 1986; Berry et al., 1986; Cooper & Hopper,
1988). Within the academy the discipline of sociology was under severe attack
from reactionary elements (Marks, 1983; Marsland, 1984, 1985), with the radical
political Left becoming increasingly vilified, and subsequently marginalized. What
to call the conference suddenly assumed great significance. Cooper and Hopper
applied for funding for the proposed conference from the (then) Social Science
Research Council naming it “Critical Perspectives on Accounting”. The Council in
turn only agreed to provide financial support if the name of the conference was
changed to either “New” or “Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting”. After a
period of agonizing about whether to accept the funding, it was decided to adopt the
IPA title12 , which has been retained for the five subsequent conferences13 .
The intervening years confirm that the 1985 conference was a major success.
Although there were only around 60 participants, the IPA project as this is
now conceived of across, and indeed beyond, the accounting academy has
scarcely looked backwards when measured by many conventional indicators. As
a consequence there is much reason to conclude that the conference was the
means whereby contemporary interdisciplinary accounting researchers in particular
began to find themselves moving “up where we belong”. For those present at
the conference, it was clear that whatever the name on the conference literature,
a critical accounting emphasis was currently dominant, and set the IPA project’s
agenda. Papers informed by labour process theory, political economy, and Critical
Theory, all based in Marxist theory and critical sociology, were prevalent, while the
title of a collection of conference papers published several years later was Critical
Accounts: Reorienting Accounting Research (Cooper & Hopper, 1990)14 .
The turning point?
Despite the dominance of a critical accounting emphasis, all the papers presented
at the 1985 conference cannot be regarded as contributions to the promotion of
the critical accounting project as it had evolved to that time. The two alternative
conference titles available to Cooper and Hopper had relevance to anyone
likely to attend this event. There were papers on a range of subjects including
inflation accounting (Bryer & Brignall, 1985; Thompson, 1985), occupational
registration (Macdonald, 1985), accounting for small business (Ritchie, 1985),
performance measurement in workers’ cooperatives (Jefferis & Thomas, 1985),
and the emergence of modern finance theory (Whitley, 1985). The most significant
contributions beyond the set of critical accounting papers, however, were a number
readily identified as both interdisciplinary and new to the vast majority of accounting
researchers. These were the papers informed by the work of Foucault, a French
historian whose interdisciplinary writings, dating back to the early 1960s, had
increasingly informed many in the social, cultural, and historical sciences in the
previous decade. The first Foucauldian paper to be published in AOS, the 1985
study by Burchell, Clubb, and Hopwood of value added statements, appeared soon
after the conference. It was this genre of work that was soon to challenge critical
accounting for dominance within the contemporary IPA project.
Three of the papers presented at the conference illustrate that, from the outset,
the relationship between Foucauldian and critical accounting perspectives as
competing, generic approaches to progressing the contemporary IPA project was
itself in the process of being socially constructed. It is possible to identify links
between them and both the precontemporary and contemporary IPA projects, as
these were identified earlier in the paper. In the case of Hoskin and Macve (1985),
what we have is a new framework to exploring the history of accounting. In their
view, a history informed by Foucault’s genealogical and archaeological approaches,
together with his focus on power/knowledge, has the capacity to provide more
penetrating insights than conventional histories (see also Hoskin & Macve, 1986).
While Loft (1985) also focuses on history, that of UK cost accounting between 1914
and 1925, like Burchell et al. (1985) and Miller and O’Leary (1987), she offers
the sort of sociological or constructionist history that Burchell et al. (1980) had
previously sketched out. The same perspective could equally well be deployed
in the case of any accounting system. By contrast, Knights and Collinson (1985)
appear much more sympathetic to a critical accounting perspective. Consequently,
their attempt to incorporate Foucauldian insights can be seen as an exercise in
enhancing the critical accounting perspective as a Marxist perspective. In Foucault
they find themes and concepts that provide a means of developing a more
provocative critique of the way in which accounting has become incorporated
in organizations and society. Foucault is therefore being used to strengthen the
critical accounting project as a progressive, ultimately emancipatory intervention in
accounting scholarship, and not simply as an alternative, interdisciplinary approach
designed to extend the corpus of accounting knowledges.
Returning to the broader social context in which the 1985 conference was staged,
it would be unwarranted to assert that there were any signs of an organized
witch-hunt against critically minded and/or politically active academics, despite
the increasingly anti-social-scientific rhetoric. Nevertheless, intelligent young faculty
in accounting had some cause to question the wisdom of becoming too closely
identified with a critical accounting project that had all the appearance of being out
of step with the prevailing mindset. It was one thing to have growing concerns about
the outcome of the UK Conservative administration’s “radical” political programme,
one that continued for the next dozen years (and arguably to this day). To “confuse”
these legitimate worries with one’s personal research interests was a quite different
issue, for while many parties (not least 1960s critical sociologists) questioned the
possibilities of ever being “objective”, it remained a powerful rhetorical notion. As a
mechanism for coping with the uncertainties of the epoch, adopting a Foucauldian
perspective for the pursuit of interdisciplinary accounting research had a great deal
to commend it as a viable career strategy. On the other side of the Atlantic, there
were few opportunities for aspiring interdisciplinary accounting scholars. Virtually no
Ph.D. programmes offered an interdisciplinary course of study beyond the popular
social psychology or behavioural accounting track, and very few accounting faculty
were even aware of, much less engaged in, the critical accounting project. Further,
unlike their peers in the UK, the Big Eight (subsequently Six, Five, . . . ) accounting
(subsequently professional service) firms had much more influence within the
accounting academy further dampening critical inclinations.
Poststructural/postmodern perspectives also provide their own justification for
abandoning the critical accounting project. Foucault, like many of his postmodern
contemporaries, departed from Marxian orthodoxy in the late 1960s in order to
accomplish much needed social change. In doing so, postmodern philosophy
problematized the defining modernist axiom of progress, uncoupling knowledge and
change. So while it might be the case that an individual wishes to change society,
there should be no illusion that this must be accomplished by a change oriented
academic stance. One might be a good academic and a good person without having
to link the two; though carried to its logical conclusion ultimately “anything goes”.
Obviously, this raises significant doubt of ever being objective, which is now cast
as modernist mystification, common to Marxist and non-Marxist philosophy alike.
Released of the shackles of modernism, one might now conclude that human beings
are finally capable of being “critical”. Unfortunately, it all seems to bog down here in a
morass of discursive formations and simulacra15 . However, for those seeing security
in the face of mounting criticism of social scientific research, Foucault probably
seemed to be a good bet.
The rest, as they say, is history
Following the highly successful 1985 convocation, the contemporary IPA project
began to gather pace, establishing itself as a substantial sub-discipline of
accounting a decade later. By that time there were two new journals dedicated to
the publication of interdisciplinary work: Advances in Public Interest Accounting and
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, together with a third that has demonstrated
a commitment to publishing a significant interdisciplinary quota: the Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal. Mainstream journals such as the British
Accounting Review, the European Accounting Review, and the Pacific Accounting
Review have also served as outlets for interdisciplinary work, together with the
Accounting Forum, the International Journal of Accounting Information Systems
(formerly Advances in Accounting Information Systems), Accounting, Management
and Information Technologies, and Management Accounting Research. Interdis-
ciplinary accounting research has also appeared in the volumes of major social
science journals including Economy and Society, Organization Studies, the Journal
of Management Studies and the Administrative Science Quarterly 16 . Following
the success of the triennial IPA conferences, the journal CPA began to sponsor
regular meetings in North America in the early 1990s. It was joined in 1995 by
an Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, forming
a prestigious circuit of interdisciplinary events that now regularly attract several
hundred participants. At a more local level, the British Accounting Association

agreed to formally support the activities of interdisciplinary scholars in the UK,
through the formation of a special interest group that drew many of its members
from the IPA workshop established in 1992 by the late Tony Puxty.
The range of perspectives or knowledges that are now used to view accounting
has grown since the mid-1980s, enriching the rapidly expanding literature of the
field. While of and for variants of interdisciplinary accounting research are still
identifiable, and continue to provide penetrating insights, the principal dynamic of
the contemporary interdisciplinary project is the conflict that has occurred between
those who would seek to identify the interdisciplinary with the critical accounting
project and those who wish to promote a project more akin to that described by
Burchell et al. (1980)17 . The dominance of the critical accountants at the 1985
IPA was not evident three years later, and by the time of IPA1991 it was the
Foucauldian who were now the more influential18 . The “discovery” of these writers
is clearly evident in the pages of AOS in the later 1980s and early 1990s, alongside
contributions from alternative factions within the rapidly maturing interdisciplinary
project. Thereafter, the number of critical accounting papers begins to fall away
noticeably, with Hopper and Armstrong’s (1991) critique of Johnson and Kaplan
(1987) perhaps marking a further turning point in the history of the contemporary
IPA project19 .
Back in the “old” critical camp20 , 1990 saw the launch of Critical Perspectives on
Accounting (CPA), edited by David Cooper and Tony Tinker, by now established
as two of the leading critical scholars. Motivated by the realization that AOS
could, or would, no longer adequately support the critical accounting project, the
journal has become the principal outlet for such work. Although CPA continues
to publish contributions from across the interdisciplinary spectrum, little of a
Foucauldian genre is evident particularly after the 1994 issue entitled “Beyond
Praxis: Marx After Foucault”. Within the critical accounting project itself, some have
deemed it possible, even necessary, to integrate elements of postmodern and
poststructuralist thought into the underlying Marxist critical theoretic (Roslender,
1996a,b; Broadbent et al., 1997; Gallhofer and Haslam, 1997; see also Alvesson
and Willmott, 1996). Equally, some longstanding advocates of the critical accounting
project have been comfortable to produce work that appears less threatening than
in early years, albeit without ever seeking to become associated with the now
arguably dominant Foucauldian standpoint. All things considered, however, given
the progress achieved by the contemporary IPA project since the mid-1970s, it would
seem reasonable to conclude that, having experienced a significant high in their
fortunes in the early years of this process, critical accountants are now less visible
than might be expected. One simple explanation might be that in the same way that
the critical accounting project was at its height when society was being ravaged by
the radical right, now that we have Blair and Clinton (well we did for most of the time
we spent developing the paper), and a return to social justice and inclusion, critical
accountants do not need to be so angry. Alternatively, since we now accept that it is
a case of each for her/himself, let’s all play safe and “go with Foucault”.
Before considering how we might begin to reclaim and refurbish the critical
accounting project, there are two illustrative matters of recent history that need to
be commented upon. The first is the event that initially provoked the writing of this
paper, namely the debate held at IPA1997 on the motion “Critical accounting has lost
its way”. Supporting the motion were three colleagues who have made significant
contributions to the critical accounting project since the early 1980s: Armstrong,
Tinker, and Willmott. Against, and presumably of the view that the critical accounting
project has not lost its way, and is alive and well, were Cooper, Hoskin, and Loft.
While Cooper, like Willmott, has been positive about the possible contribution of
Foucauldian work to the critical accounting project, and beyond, there are few if
any grounds on which it is possible to identify either Loft or Hoskin as anything
other than Foucauldians. Both were in the vanguard of the Foucauldian intervention
in the mid-1980s, and both have remained there subsequently. Irrespective of
their personal politics, it seems extremely unlikely that they, and colleagues like
them, can be comfortable with Neimark’s (1990, 1994) representation of the critical
accounting project. This does not, however, seem to be a deterrent to attaching the
label of critical accounting to such endeavours. By so doing, the 1984 conference
naming dilemma of Cooper and Hopper is turned on its head, with the term “critical
accounting” being employed to identify a collection of interdisciplinary ways of
seeing that are far removed from the critical accounting project. There may be two
motives for this. First, it may simply be an instance of postmodern irony. Second, and
more worrisome, however, is the observation that, despite its somewhat suspect
former connotations, in the longer term the critical accounting brand, for that is
what it is, has a great deal of kudos associated with it, and like any brand is worth
appropriating if possible.
Finally, we return to the earlier observation of the existence of a powerful link
between Foucauldian accounting scholarship and the direction for the contemporary
IPA project as envisaged in Burchell et al. (1980). Previously the latter was identified
as the study of “accounting in action”, which in turn was argued to have a strong
affinity with an interpretivist approach to sociological enquiry, and to be relatively
uncritical in emphasis. Burchell et al also commend the pursuit of more historical
studies of accounting as a desirable complement to the former investigations.
Twenty years later historical scholarship in accounting is both well established,
and heavily influenced by Foucauldian thinking. Interpretive sociological studies of
accounting are now much less evident than they were in the 1980s, having been
superceded by Foucauldian equivalents that over time have become ever less
distinct from interpretive sociology (Preston et al., 1992; Miller & O’Leary, 1994;
Chua, 1995). Roslender (1990, 1992) drew attention to similarities between the
early Foucauldian contributions and those of a more interpretive nature. A strong
case can be made for concluding that they now have much more in common than
differentiates them. One explanation of this convergence is the reduced attention
paid to methodological self-awareness after the mid-1980s (itself a consequence
of the postmodern turn). The increasing interest in the 1990s in adopting an institu-
tionalist perspective in accounting research would seem to affirm the dominance of
a Foucauldian perspective within the contemporary IPA project. The same elements
are present: a good measure of sociological insight, an emphasis on deriving more
partial or localized insights, and a rejection of concurrent political intervention. In
other words, fancy words, clever insights, and then let’s look at something else.
Gathering our Thoughts (or Simply Being Explicit)
Surveying the present day IPA project, it is possible to identify three reasonably
distinct sub-projects. First, and the oldest, is that of bringing some other perspective
to bear on accounting in order to furnish essentially non-technical insights on
accounting, or in order to enhance the purchase of accounting as an insightful
element of management practice21 . The second subproject is the explicitly radical
and politically engaged practice that was dominant during the 1980s, and which
continues to command widespread support, the critical accounting project. Its links
with Marxist theory ensure that the critical accounting project evidences a higher
order of interdisciplinarity than the former project. In addition, as an example of
the application of the critical theoretic within accounting, the critical accounting
project subjects accounting to an explicitly radical political critique, and seeks
to promote the fashioning of an emancipatory perspective on the contribution
that accounting might make to the broader social order. The third project, and
for the past decade the more dominant one in terms of its influence, if not the
number and quality of contributions relative to the other two sub-projects, shares
with the critical accounting project its higher order of interdisciplinarity, in some
part through a strong link with sociology. Although this latter project is also often
given to questioning of accounting’s legitimacy, it is normally content to advance
a more conventional critique, and is not characterized by the radical, politically
engaged commitments of the critical accounting project. In this respect it might
be seen to sit between the critical accounting project and the longer established
of/for project, sharing with the former project a richer interdisciplinary foundation
while simultaneously sharing the latter project’s distance from any specific political
engagement.
Advancing the above categorization is not intended to suggest that individual
accounting scholars working within the first and third projects are not as distressed
by the machinations of the institution of accountancy on a personal level as those
who, like ourselves, seem comfortable to be openly associated with the critical
accounting project. For whatever reason, those who seek to contribute to the
literatures of the non-critical sub-projects feel able to divorce their personal political
inclinations from their professional activities as accounting scholars. Recalling
Marx’s celebrated 11th thesis on Feuerbach, these individuals are examples of
latter-day philosophers who are content only to interpret the world, as opposed
to those who have committed themselves to the critical accounting project, and
who thereby accept that the point of their endeavours is to contribute to changing
that world. Against this background, it seems reasonable to object to any attempt
emanating from these colleagues to use the designation of critical accounting to
describe their work. Critical accounting is what those associated with the critical
accounting project deliver—accounting knowledges that are specifically designed to
accomplish social change. Equally, an explicit commitment to the critical accounting
project does not preclude individuals from making contributions to either the
mainstream literature, or to any of the “uncritical” interdisciplinary projects. However,
on such occasions it is vital that their contributions are not represented as being
contributions to the critical accounting project. While we consciously privilege the
critical accounting project on the basis of its express commitment to a radical

political praxis, we are also keen to value other parallel, but ultimately different
forms of research and scholarship on their own terms. The point at issue is one
of integrity: a willingness to make an explicit commitment to the critical accounting
project, as opposed to being content to either actively seek to appropriate this label,
or to accept it when it is proffered.
What comes next: affirming the case for an enabling accounting
As noted earlier, 10 alternative research streams are identified by Lodh and Gaffikin
(1997) as “critical accounting studies”, with the vast majority having no obvious
general political programme. The challenge is to reclaim the critical accounting
project as an explicitly radical, politically engaged programme that exists within the
more inclusive present day IPA project. Crucially, this will entail a reversal of the
“withering of criticism” recently identified by Tinker (2000) as characterizing much of
what is offered in the name of critical accounting research and scholarship, and will
reaffirm accounting’s progressive or “enabling” potentialities.
Initially it is helpful to clarify what we mean by critical accounting. Gallhofer and
Haslam (1997, footnote 6) provide a more focused view specifying the critical
accounting project as being committed to improving well being through rational
(ruling out the post perspectives) and political (ruling out the strictly academic, value
free perspectives) means. Moore (1991), in a widely cited critique that encompasses
the post perspective as well, calls for a radical political activism in defining critical
accounting as
[A] set of discursive practices . . . embodying a radical epistemological (or political) state
which questions objectivity in the first place, finds “accurate representation” an impossible
goal, and seeks alternative descriptions for what accountants do and the role accounting
plays (Moore, 1991, p. 770)22 .
Laughlin (1999) also allows for, though does not mandate, an element of praxis in
defining critical accounting as
[A] critical understanding of the role of accounting processes and practices and the
accounting profession in the functioning of society and organizations with an intention
to use that understanding to engage (where appropriate) in changing these processes,
practices, and the profession (Laughlin, 1999, p. 73).
Elaborating on the key components of this definition, Laughlin states that critical
accounting research must always be contextual, recognizing the social, economic,
and political context and consequences, and that change emanates from evaluation
made possible by the critically motivated understanding. Unlike Moore, Laughlin
does not call for a “radical political activism” or a political programme associated with
critique. We believe that the critical accounting project should follow from a critique
of current social, economic, and political circumstances as they are implicated in and
constitute the practice of accounting and include an active political agenda. Thus, in
its simplest form, the critical accounting project is concerned with the promotion
of reflexive self-awareness of the conditions and consequences of accountancy
conceived of as a central institution within modern societies anticipating responsible
action.
An analysis of this definition is in order. It is instructive to begin with the

notion of conditions. Critical accounting research and scholarship seeks to identify
the foundations of accountancy—its underpinnings, its axioms, who it speaks
for and perhaps more significantly those whose voices it excludes, what it has
been developed to do. In accomplishing this task, critical accounting is required
to draw on the approaches and insights associated with a range of disciplines,
thus is an inherently interdisciplinary undertaking. The more other disciplines
are enrolled, the richer the resultant knowledge becomes. In focusing on the
consequences of accountancy, critical accounting research and scholarship moves
beyond documenting the outcomes of history or the construction of accounting
information systems, demonstrating that all outcomes are in fact consequent on
their initial conditions of existence. Rather than seeking to understand the conditions
and/or consequences of accountancy, conditions and consequences are best seen
as twin facets of the same reality. Pretensions of value-freeness or objectivity
are rejected as critical accounting researchers actively seek to identify in the
consequences of accountancy that which is present in its founding conditions. While
all manner of diverse insights and perspectives are drawn upon to enhance the
critical perspective, as Tinker (2000) forcibly reminds us, the critical accounting
project as the source of criticism about accountancy must have its roots in Marxist
theory. In other words, if it ain’t Marxist, it can’t be critical.
This moves us to the notion of reflexive self-awareness23 . By self-awareness we
mean an understanding of one’s place within the prevailing social arrangements, in
this case the conditions and consequences of accountancy. With the advent of the
critical accounting project in the mid-1970s and the exposure of the contributions
and consequences of accountancy, it became apparent that there were serious
implications associated with pursuing the role of an accounting academic. The same
perspectives that furnished some of the most penetrating insights also challenged
the recipients of this new knowledge to reflect on their place within the prevailing
social arrangements. More crucially, it demanded that they took whatever steps they
could to act upon their understanding for the benefit, and betterment of those not in
an enlightened position. Reflexive self-awareness is not a matter of thinking about,
or reflecting on, what has now become apparent. It means to actively intervene in
the existing arrangements to effect progress. At the very least it is important that
those involved in the critical accounting project possess some variant of the Marxist
philosophy of praxis that would provide them with guidance on contributing to social
progress. In reflexive self-awareness lies the potential for reproducing the criticism
that the wider mass movement may, at some later time, embrace and enact in its
own revolutionary praxis.
In our definition of the critical accounting project, the use of the term promotion is
intended to signify that critical accounting researchers and scholars are actively
seeking to share their insights, worries, and concerns about the conditions and
consequences of accountancy with all those whom they come into contact. Based
in Marxist theory, and where necessary enhanced by contributions from other
traditions, the tenor of these insights will result in those who openly commit
themselves to the critical accounting project assuming the mantle of latter day
Gramscian organic intellectuals.
The term enabling accounting has recently been introduced into the literature of
critical accounting research (Broadbent et al., 199724 ; Gallhofer & Haslam, 1997)
as a desirable extension of the critical accounting project. Its advocates describe it
in the following terms:
Our aim . . . is to open up and extend further a debate on how accounting could be
mobilized to promote social “betterment”—welfare, justice, emancipation . . . . Our concern
to explore and promote the notion of an accounting note that would be enabling is a
reflection of our critical theoretic stance (Broadbent et al., 1997, p. 265).
An important characteristic of an enabling accounting is its ability to act as a force for

radical emancipatory social change through making things visible and comprehensible and
helping engender dialogue and action towards emancipatory change (Gallhofer & Haslam,
1997, p. 82).
An enabling accounting can be viewed as an example of a critical theory for

accounting, a development called for by Dillard (1991), concurrent with Moore’s
observation that unless the critical accounting project was able to establish
some form of practical, emancipatory programme, it was likely to remain forever
an “interesting sidelight” (Moore, 1991, p. 770). The challenge of an enabling
accounting is to move beyond providing insightful and incisive critiques of
accounting to attempting to make accounting work as a positive force in the
pursuit of democratic, in the sense of universally inclusive modes, social progress.
Enabling accounting gains energy and direction from the criticism that critical
accounting research and scholarship provides and seeks to move beyond critique
to contemplating viable and emancipatory ways to move forward, to progress.
The idea of an enabling accounting immediately raises the question of whether
it is possible to reconfigure accounting in some way so that it can be made
emancipatory. In retrospect, it seems clear that critical accounting researchers
soon became aware that it was not simply a matter of reorienting or refocusing
accounting. As was previously recognized in the cases of art, literature, science, and
technology, it is not possible to reshuffle the pack and come up with an emancipatory
alternative. In this way, an enabling accounting, in the sense of a thoroughly
emancipatory accounting calculus, is something that needs to be constructed from
the ground upwards by those who find themselves in the privileged position of being
aware of the conditions and consequences of accounting as it has evolved as a
medium and an outcome of the social arrangements in which it is embedded. In
short, the calls for an enabling accounting are the result of a growing recognition of
the magnitude of the challenge entailed in (re)making accounting emancipatory.
Beyond the Bunker
In order to construct a genuinely enabling accounting, it is necessary for all who

are committed to the critical accounting project to become as outward looking
as possible, and to engage the various parties and stakeholders who share the
accounting space with us. These latter individuals exist as a majority who can be,
and indeed need to be made more aware of the conditions and consequences
of accounting. At the same time, they are the source of our continuing insights
about what accounting is, the basis of its power and influence, and the extent of its
robustness. It is to this majority that the present “disabling” accounting is entrusted.
Who are they, and how might we best engage them? In exploring these questions
we do not underestimate the potential difficulty; however, a proactive approach is
more likely to initiate responsible, constructive action.
The research community
Despite the advances made since its emergence in the mid-1970s, there are many
fields within the mainstream in which the critical accounting project is still largely
unknown. If the critical accounting project is to evolve into a genuinely alternative
force, it must do so across the spectrum of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This
will necessarily entail a greater extent of engagement with mainstream colleagues
in their own arenas, particularly conferences and journals, while at the same time
persuading them to become involved in our activities. It is important that in our
encounters with the broader research community we present an open-minded
impression, one that does not convey either defensiveness or omniscience (or both).
We must not project an image of knowing all of the answers; rather we must indicate
that we are comfortable with the stance of posing questions, pursuing insights,
and exploring issues. As advocates of adopting the critical theoretic in accounting,
with its defining radical political underpinnings, we have already accepted that in
order to promote that stance more widely, it is necessary to encourage others to
embrace a questioning mode. An enabling accounting must begin by asking the
right questions, questions that focus on the issue of “why” as opposed to the matter
of “how”. Such an approach is not unproblematic. The existence and effectiveness
of the gatekeepers is well documented in the previously cited work by Tom Lee and
Paul Williams. Even though the situation is receiving increased exposure (see CPA,
2001, vol. 12, no. 2), change will be a significant challenge.
Students
The University provides an admirable place to begin the process of persuading

intending members of the accountancy profession that they are better served by
adopting a questioning attitude. This should not be done at the expense of providing
the expected level of technical training and accreditation. There can be little to
gain from reducing the technical content of programmes if this is likely to have
a detrimental effect on the career opportunities of students. While it is vital not
to marginalize the non-technical aspects of accounting education, it would seem
advisable to begin the process by incorporating a modest degree of accounting
studies into the foundation level curriculum. The extent of these studies should
be increased, and progressively integrated into the curriculum over time, ideally
building towards a final year dissertation exercise designed to hone the graduands’
powers of critique. The move towards an emphasis on what might be termed critical
accounting studies25 , and the critical accounting project itself, must be gradual, but
purposive, reflecting the defining pursuit of self-awareness on the part of those
encountering such ideas for the first time. In this respect, it must not disappoint us
to find that only a minority of students evidence any real appreciation of the issues
entailed therein. This is a long term project, only the seeds of which can be sown in
the initial encounters.
The challenges relative to student, curriculum, and faculty attitudes are no less
complex than those faced in the research community. Most of our curriculum and
colleagues have been weaned on a positivistic approach to accounting education.
Moving out of this familiar comfort zone can be threatening and difficult. Because
there are currently very loud calls for revolutionary change in accounting education
(see Albrecht & Sack, 2000), a space may be forming within which significant
change can be brought about. The 150 hour rule in the US is an example of an
issue that was strongly pushed by the profession, primarily the Big Eight firms,
as necessary for the success of the profession. Now, “given the changes in the
profession, the 150 hour rule is almost universally seen as a mistake” (Albrecht &
Sack, 2000, p. 30). The firms are not willing to pay starting salaries commensurate
with the increased education. Partially as a result of the increased opportunity costs
and low starting salaries, enrollments in accounting programmes have significantly
declined. The recommendation made by Albrecht and Sack is to again revise our
programmes, curriculum, and pedagogy in line with the demands of the “profession”.
Given that whatever is done does not seem to be enough, faculties may be willing
to make significant nonpositivistic changes because of the ongoing and severe
criticism being levelled by the professional community and their representatives at
what currently constitutes accounting curriculum, pedagogy, and programmes.
Accounting professionals
Unlike students, accounting practitioners do not form a captive audience for those
seeking to infuse the critical accounting project. Equally, they are normally in the
position of having little time to read and would seem better advised to spend
what time they have keeping up to date on technical matters. The main means
of communicating with practitioners is through their professional magazines and
journals, clearly not the best vehicles for publishing “think-pieces”. Yet these remain
avenues that must be exploited. In seeking to establish contact through this channel,
it is important that we identify issues that are of relevance to our practitioner
counterparts. It is vital that we are seen as being able to recognize the issues to
which they can relate. This does not mean that we might only embrace a reactive,
practitioner driven agenda, rather that we are in tune with their situation. Once
again, it is important that we do not convey the impression of omniscience, that
we are better able to appreciate the problems that confront our counterparts, that
we can provide the solutions their problems. Ideally it would be desirable to engage
practitioners in dialogue, both through the pages of these publications and by way
of private communications. More radically it would be very challenging to be invited
to make presentations at local association meetings, or to participate in debates. In
the same way that our mainstream academic colleagues (and maybe ourselves) are
prepared to share their knowledge and insights with practitioners, we must work at
creating the same space for a critical accounting dialogue.
The consultancy role
The majority of critical accounting researchers are, or might realistically lay claim
to being, accomplished within some part of the mainstream of accountancy. For
this reason they may find themselves in a position of being invited to act in a
consultancy role by colleagues occupying more senior managerial positions. Such
invitations provide the opportunity to engage directly with accounting practice
and practitioners. To the extent that we do have a more mainstream competence,
one that is infused with an appropriate degree of reflexivity, we must avoid the
temptation to enact the role of consultant in some objective way. There is nothing
to be gained by shedding the mantle of critical accountant in the reception area.
The issues that arise should be discussed and debated in the same way as they
might be in the classroom or the conference hall. If those who fund consultancy
are unhappy continuing doing so because of the nature of the insights they receive,
they are free not to engage our services in the future. The decision must be made
by them. We should not pass up such invitations nor prejudge the possibilities
for constructive dialogue. As much as any other set of stakeholders, holders of
senior management positions are entitled to glimpse the enabling possibilities of
the discipline in which we share a competence.
Involvement with the profession and consultancy activities may represent the
most difficult areas to address because we have limited involvement with these
constituencies. Public accounting, as it has been traditionally practiced, seems to
be headed toward extinction with the abdication of the responsibility for third party
rights to a true and fair representation through independent attestation in favour
of customer centred, and more lucrative, consultancy activities where allegiance is
unquestionably to the client. The social implications of this obvious and significant
shift may provide opportunities for counsel and critique in the political arena. There
also might be more acceptance on the part of those individual professionals who
have become disillusioned by the course of events.
Local action
In addition to being academics, critical accountants are also members of society,

citizens who have rights within that society, and more significantly, obligations to
their fellow citizens. A key obligation is that of acting in a way that is socially respon-
sible. For the critical accountant, the necessity to be socially responsible translates
into the requirement to provide others with explanations of what might be termed
popular financial calculations. Since the 1970s we have become more familiar with
such calculations as the financial calculus, with its accounting underpinnings, has
progressively colonized the society in which we live. As a result, we all experience
the conditions and consequences of accountancy throughout our daily lives,
increasingly integrating some of its most powerful concepts into our vocabulary.
Few can lay claim to fully understand the financial discourse that surrounds us,
sometimes least of all many of those who are enrolled to articulate it. In the UK, the
growth in support for public–private partnerships to replace or refurbish educational,
health, and similar facilities has meant that most people are now faced with the
reality of a creeping privatization of the much vaunted Welfare State. While such
partnerships are both necessary and beneficial to local communities in the short
to medium term, they clearly have substantial medium to long term benefits for
“partners” who are willing to take the financial risk and invest the necessary funds. It
is important that the detail of all such proposals be rigorously scrutinized in order to
determine whether they do provide the most beneficial outcome available for users.
Political engagement
While all of the above legitimately counts as political engagement, and is consistent
with the challenge of progressing the critical accounting project, it is necessary to
explore the opportunities that exist for making a positive contribution at the national
and international government levels. The central aspect of this intervention is for
critical accountants to act as a source of information on how accounting is being
employed in ways not in the public interest. Earlier we argued that accounting is a
medium and an outcome of the prevailing social arrangements, that it is intended
to contribute to securing the reproduction of these arrangements, included within
which is the prevailing conception of the public interest. The lesson of this argument
is that accounting works for the public interest. So from a critical accounting
perspective, accounting’s shortcomings can only be a consequence of the deeper
shortcomings associated with the public interest. The purpose of documenting the
disjunction between accounting practice and the public interest is to problematize
the public interest itself. Accounting fails the public because it was never constructed
in their interests. The only way to develop a truly enabling accounting is to install a
structure of social arrangements underpinned by a philosophy of egalitarianism.
This is the ultimate contribution for which the critical accounting project, as a critical
theory for accounting, must continually strive.
Notes
1. This is equally true of academic research in the applied professional disciplines such as engineering,
medicine, education, and business.
2. The dominance of elite “gatekeepers” in academic accounting in the US is documented by a series of
papers by Lee and Williams (see Lee & Williams, 1999; Lee, 1995, 1997, 1999; Williams & Rogers,
1995).
3. From our perspective, the emergence of postfunctionalist inquiry only takes place after the advent of
the interdisciplinary project.
4. See Ashton (1982), Hopwood (1974), and Libby (1981) for a review of the extant behavioural
literature of this period. Also, see Arnold and Sutton (1997) and Birnberg and Shields (1999) for
a review and discussion of the current state of this literature.
5. Some of the early founders of the discipline of sociology such as Auguste Comte argued that it
was not to be viewed as a discipline in the usual sense. It was to be understood as some form of
metadiscipline that sought to integrate elements of a number of disciplines. In the employ of the
classical sociologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as Max Weber, Emile Durkheim,
and Ferdinand Tonnies, sociology provided a wide-ranging critique of the industrial society that both
complemented and contradicted that advanced by Marx a generation earlier. Although sociology’s
metadisciplinary wings were clearly clipped in the course of it habitation in the US academy from
the turn of the century until the 1960s, there was always a minority within the discipline who leaned
towards Comte’s program, in form if not in substance.
6. There were some sociological studies of accounting in the literature by the mid-1970s, e.g. Hastings
and Hinings (1970), Johnson and Caygill (1971) and Montagna (1974). Twenty-five years later it
is still not possible to identify a substantial corpus that might be described as such (Miller, 2000).
One reason for this is, somewhat surprisingly, that US sociologists have elected not to devote
much time to the study of the institution of accountancy. At the same time, while a number of their
UK counterparts including Armstrong, Jones, Miller, Roslender, and Willmott have devoted greater
attention to accounting, they have tended to focus more on accounting than sociology. All are also
active within the IPA project, coming to it as its status and influence increased in the early to mid-
1980s.
7. See Hopper and Powell (1985), Hopper et al. (1986, 1987), Armstrong (1984, 1985, 1986, 1987).
8. Labour process theory is a Marxist theory informed branch of industrial sociology, closely related to
political economy and precipitated in its contemporary form by the publication of Harry Braverman’s
(1974) Labor and Monopoly Capitalism.
9. The civil rights movements and the Viet Nam conflict in the US, the unrest in Northern Ireland in the
UK, and the student revolts in Europe.
10. See Beaver (1989) and Watts and Zimmerman (1986) for a review of this literature.
11. For example, see the work of Laughlin (1981), Laughlin et al. (1982), Laughlin and Puxty (1983) and
Puxty and Laughlin (1983).
12. Personal communication with David Cooper, letter 31 January 2000.
13. This conference has grown substantially; IPA2000 attracted approximately 300 participants from
around the world with over 120 papers published in the proceedings accompanied by discussants’
comments.
14. There are two viable explanations of the dissonance between components of the IPA project. From
one perspective it is possible to see it as an example of the existence of contradictions within the
capitalist social order, so that while accounting is being deployed as a major capitalist weapon in the
class struggle, there is growing support among accounting academics for exploring its ideological
underpinnings. Less complimentary is a second explanation that sees these critical accounting
tendencies as a manifestation of accounting scholarship’s laggardly nature, at best a phase that
needs to be gone through, but ultimately a distraction.
15. This whole discussion has actually become rather silly with Chua (1986) who can be interpreted
as arguing that Foucault is as much a critical theorist as any of the Marxists, while Neimark (1990)
describes Habermas as a postmodern philosopher.
16. For example, see Laughlin (1991), Robson (1993), Ezzamel et al. (1997) and Oakes et al. (1998).
17. This, of course, is a simplification, and one that has become more evident with the passage of time.
Nevertheless, in our view, it is increasingly helpful.
18. As Armstrong (1994) demonstated, the “Foucauldian” title is not intended to be taken literally, being
applicable to a number of postmodern philosophers, social theorists, and sociologists whose writings
had attracted growing support from many within the contemporary IPA project.
19. The Hopper and Armstrong paper was published in a special issue of AOS, a collection of papers
from IPA1988, edited by Miller, Laughlin, and Hopper, with the title “The New Accounting History”.
A previous collection from IPA1985 was published in 1987, edited by Cooper and Hopper, with the
title “Critical Studies in Accounting”. No collections from later conferences have subsequently been
published. Hopper and Armstrong (1991) was also arguably the last heavyweight Marxist paper
to be published in AOS for a number of years, the contribution of Wardell and Weisenfeld (1991)
notwithstanding. Recently, several more critical papers have appeared within the journal’s pages,
including Arnold (1998), Froud et al. (1998) and Cooper and Taylor (2000).
20. Or as Laughlin (1999) rather mischievously suggests, among those who might see themselves as
being more entranced by German as opposed to French “critical theorists”.
21. This represents the rediscovery of the for perspective, interestingly again most pronounced in the
case of management accounting, which has seen insights from marketing management, human
resources management, and information systems management incorporated in accounting research.
22. Critical accounting does not mean traditional leftist accounting projects, corporate social responsibil-
ity, public or environmental accounting, or participative information systems, nor does it include the
traditional discussions of the philosophy of science within the social sciences (Moore, 1991, p. 770).
23. The origins of the philosophy of reflexive self-awareness lie in critical theory, the variant of Marxist
theory developed from the 1920s onwards, and most closely associated with the work of the Frankfurt
School, Gramsci and Lukacs, and since the 1960s, Habermas. In addition to developing and refining
the Marxist critique of capitalist society in the 20th century, the critical theorists were also engaged by
the difficulties of forging the link between understanding and changing society. While the emergence
of a mass movement characterized by a shared revolutionary class consciousness remained a
prerequisite for the successful overthrow of the capitalist order, the difficulties of building such a
consciousness were increasingly apparent. The critical theorists recognized that individuals like
themselves, a group Gramsci (1971) was to term organic intellectuals, were in a privileged position,
able to spend time studying the prevailing structures and processes, and often with an audience for
their thoughts.
24. In the 1997 issue of the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal guest edited by these four
scholars, the possibilities of enabling accounting are explored in eight wide-ranging articles. Current
accounting is compared with and critiqued using alternative cultures (Chew & Greer, 1997) as well
as alternative paradigms (Reiter, 1997). Several of the papers (Gray et al., 1997; Bebbington, 1997;
Shaoul, 1997; Seal & Vincent-Jones, 1997) address aspects of the social accounting project. Two
papers (Cuganesan et al., 1997; Tinker & Koutsoumadi, 1997) focus on dimensions of accounting
education.
25. Accounting studies is used here to refer to the totality of IPA work. Critical accounting studies refer
to those interdisciplinary works that are explicitly associated with critical accounting project.
References
Albrecht, W. & Sack, R., Accounting Education: Charting a Course through a Perilous Future, Accounting
Education Series No. 16 (Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association, 2000).
Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H., Making Sense of Management: a Critical Introduction (London: Sage, 1996).
Argyris, C., The Impact of Budgets on People (New York: Controllership Foundation, 1952).
Armstrong, P., “Competition Between the Organisational Professions and the Evolution of Management
Control Strategies”, in K. Thompson (ed.), Work, Employment and Unemployment (Milton Keynes:
Open University Press, 1984).
Armstrong, P., “Changing Management Control Strategies: the Role of Competition Between Ac-
countancy and Other Organizational Professions”, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 1985,
pp. 129–148.
Armstrong, P., “Management Control Strategies and Inter-Professional Competition: the Case of
Accountancy and Personnel Management”, in D. Knights & H. Willmott (eds), Managing the Labor
Process, pp. 19–43 (London: Gower, 1986).
Armstrong, P., “The Rise of Accounting Controls in British Capitalist Enterprises”, Accounting,
Organizations, and Society, 1987, pp. 415–436.
Armstrong, P., “The Influence of Michel Foucault on Accounting Research”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 1994, pp. 25–55.
Arnold, V. & Sutton, S. (eds), Behavioral Accounting Research: Foundations and Frontiers (Sarasota, FL:
American Accounting Association, 1997).
Arnold, P. J., “The Limits of Postmodernism in Accounting History: the Decatur Experience”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 1998, pp. 665–684.
Ashton, R., Accounting Information Processing in Accounting: Studies in Accounting Research #17
(Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association, 1982).
Beaver, W., Financial Reporting: an Accounting Revolution, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1989).
Bebbington, J., “Engagement, Education and Sustainability: a Review Essay on Environmental
Accounting”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1997, pp. 365–381.
Becker, H. S., Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (New York: Free Press, 1963).
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T., The Social Construction of Reality (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967).
Berry, T., Capps, T., Cooper, D., Hopper, T. & Lowe, T., “NCB Accounts—a Mine of Misinformation”,
Accountancy, 1985a, pp. 10–12.
Berry, A., Capps, T., Cooper, D., Ferguson, P., Hopper, T. & Lowe, E. A., “Management Control in an Area
of the NCB: Rationales of Accounting Practices in a Public Enterprise”, Accounting, Organizations, and
Society, 1985b, pp. 3–28.
Berry, A., Capps, T., Cooper, D., Hopper, T. & Lowe, A., “The Ethics of Research in a Public Enterprise”,
in F. Heller (ed.), The Uses and Abuses of Social Science Research, pp. 85–98 (London: Sage, 1986).
Birnberg, J. & Shields, M. D., “Three Decades of Behavioral Accounting Research: a Search for Order”,
Behavioral Research in Accounting, 1999, pp. 23–74.
Braverman, H., Labor and Monopoly Capital: the Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New
York: Monthly Review, 1974).
Broadbent, J., Ciancanelli, P., Gallhofer, S. & Haslam, J., “Enabling Accounting: the Way Forward?”,
Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 1997, pp. 265–275.
Bryer, R. A. & Brignall, T. J., “The De-Mystification of Inflation Accounting: a Case Study in Divestment
from UK Manufacturing Industry”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting
Conference, Manchester, July 1985.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J. & Nahapiet, J., “The Roles of Accounting in
Organizations and Society”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1980, pp. 5–28.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C. & Hopwood, A., “Accounting in its Social Context: Towards a History of Value
Added in the United Kingdom”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1985, pp. 381–414.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G., Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis (London: Heinemann,
1979).
Chew, A. & Greer, S., “Contrasting World Views on Accounting: Accountability and Aboriginal Culture”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1997, pp. 276–298.
Chua, Y. F., “Radical Developments in Accounting Thought”, The Accounting Review, 1986, pp. 601–632.
Chua, Y. F., “Experts, Networks and Inscriptions in the Fabrication of Accounting Images: a Study of the
Representation of Three Public Hospitals”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1995, pp. 111–145.
Clegg, S. & Dunkerley, D., Organization, Class and Control (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980).
Colville, I., “Reconstructing ‘Behavioural Accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1981,
pp. 119–132.
Cooper, C. & Taylor, P., “From Taylorism to Ms Taylor: The Transformation of the Accounting Craft”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2000, pp. 555–578.
Cooper, D. J., “Discussion of Towards a Political Economy of Accounting Reports”, Accounting,
Cooper, D. & Hopper (eds), T., Debating Coal Closures: Economic Calculation in the Coal Dispute 1984–
85 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Cooper, D. & Hopper (eds), T., Critical Accounts: Reorienting Accounting Research (London: Macmillan,
1990).
Cooper, D. & Sherer, M., “The Value of Corporate Accounting Reports: Arguments For a Political
Economy of Accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1984, pp. 207–232.
Covaleski, M. A. & Dirsmith, M. W., “Budgeting as a Means of Control and Loose Coupling”, Accounting,
Cuganesan, S., Gibson, R. & Petty, R., “Exploring Accounting Education’s Enabling Possibilities: an
Analysis of a Management Accounting Text”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1997,
pp. 432–453.
Dillard, J. F., “Accounting as a Critical Social Science”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
1991, pp. 8–28.
Ezzamel, M., Lilley, S. & Willmott, H., “Accounting for Management and Management Accounting: Re-
flections on Recent Changes in the UK”, Journal of Management Studies, 1997, pp. 439–463.
Froud, J., Williams, K., Haslam, C., Johal, S. & Williams, J., “Caterpillar: Two Stories and an Argument”,
Gallhofer, S. & Haslam, J., “Beyond Accounting: the Possibilities of Accounting and Critical Accounting
Research”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1997, pp. 71–95.
Garner, S. P., Evolution of Cost Accounting to 1925 (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1954).
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L., The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
(New York: Aldine, 1967).
Goffman, E., The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969).
Gramsci, A., in Quintin Hoare & Geoffrey Nowell Smith (eds), Selections from the Prison Notebooks
(London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971).
Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R. & Zadek, S., “Struggles with the Praxis of Social Account-
ing: Stakeholders, Accountability, Audits and Procedures”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 1997, pp. 325–364.
Harman, C., The Fire Last Time: 1968 and After (London: Bookmarks, 1988).
Hendriksen, E. & Van Breda, M., Accounting Theory, 5th ed (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1992).
Hastings, A. H. & Hinings, C. R., “Role Relations and Value Adaptation: a Study of the Professional
Accountant in Industry”, Sociology, 1970, pp. 353–366.
Hoogvelt, A. & Tinker, A. M., “Accounting for Imperialism and the Comprador Role of Accounting”, Mimeo,
University of Sheffield, 1977a.
Hoogvelt, A. & Tinker, A. M., “The Sierra Leone Development Company: a Case Study in Imperialism”,
Critique of Anthropology, 1977b, pp. 19–27.
Hoogvelt, A. & Tinker, A. M., “The Role of the Post-Colonial State in Imperialism”, Journal of Modern
African Studies, 1978, pp. 1–13.
Hopper, T. & Armstrong, P., “Cost Accounting, Controlling Labour and the Rise of Conglomerates”,
Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 1991, pp. 405–438.
Hopper, T. & Powell, A., “Making Sense of Research into the Organizational and Social Aspects of
Management Accounting: a Review of its Underlying Assumptions”, Journal of Management Studies,
1985, pp. 429–465.
Hopper, T., Cooper, D., Lowe, T., Capps, T. & Mouritsen, J., “Management Control and Worker Resistance
in the National Coal Board: Financial Controls in the Labour Process”, in D. Knights & H. C. Willmott
(eds), Managing the Labour Process (London: Gower, 1986).
Hopper, T., Storey, J. & Willmott, H., “Accounting for Accounting: Towards the Development of
a Dialectical View”, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 1987, pp. 437–456.
Hopwood, A. G., Accounting and Human Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974).
Hopwood, A. G., “Towards an Organizational Perspective for the Study of Accounting and Information
Systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1978, pp. 3–13.
Hoskin, K. & Macve, R., “The Power of Accounting”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Perspectives
on Accounting Conference, Manchester, July 1985.
Hoskin, K. & Macve, R., “Accounting and the Examination: a Genealogy of Disciplinary Power”,
Jefferis, K. & Thomas, A., “Measuring the Performance of Worker Cooperatives”, Proceedings of the
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference, Manchester, July 1985.
Johnson, T. J. & Caygill, M., “The Development of Accountancy Links in the Commonwealth”, Accounting
and Business Research, 1971, pp. 155–173.
Johnson, H. T. & Kaplan, R. S., Relevance Lost: the Rise and Fall of Management Accounting (Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1987).
Knights, D. & Collinson, D., “Accounting for Discipline in Disciplinary Accounting: a Case Study of
Shopfloor Resistance to Management Accounts and its Disciplinary Outcomes”, Proceedings of the
Laughlin, R. C., “On the Nature of Accounting Methodology”, Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, 1981, pp. 329–351.
Laughlin, R. C., “Environmental Disturbances and Organizational Transitions and Transformations: Some
Alternative Models”, Organization Studies, 1991, pp. 209–232.
Laughlin, R., “Critical Accounting: Nature, Progress, and Prognosis”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 1999, pp. 73–78.
Laughlin, R. C. & Puxty, A. G., “Accounting Regulation: an Alternative Perspective”, Journal of Business
Finance, and Accounting, 1983, pp. 451–479.
Laughlin, R. C., Lowe, A. & Puxty, A. G., “Towards a Value-Neutral Positive Science of Accounting: a
Comment”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 1982, pp. 567–571.
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W., Organization and Environment (Boston, MA: Harvard University Press,
1967).
Lee, T. A., “Shaping the US Academic Research Profession: the American Accounting Association and
the Social Construction of an Elite”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1995, pp. 302–331.
Lee, T. A., “The Editorial Gatekeepers of the Accounting Academy”, Accounting, Auditing and
Lee, T. A., “Anatomy of a Professional Elite: the Executive Committee of the American Accounting
Association 1916–1996”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1999, pp. 247–264.
Lee, T. A. & Williams, P. F., “Accounting form the Inside: Legitimizing the Accounting Academic Elite”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1999, pp. 867–895.
Libby, R., Accounting and Human Information Processing: Theory and Applications (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981).
Littleton, A. C., Accounting Evolution to 1900 (New York: American Institute Publishing, 1933).
Lodh, S. & Gaffikin, M., “Critical Studies in Accounting Research, Rationality and Habermas: a
Methodological Reflection”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1997, pp. 433–478.
Loft, A., “Towards a Critical Understanding of Accounting: the Case of Cost Accounting in the UK 1914–
1925”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference, Manchester, July
1985.
Lowe, E. A. & Tinker, A. M., “New Directions for Management Accounting”, Omega, 1977a, pp. 173–183.
Lowe, E. A. & Tinker, A. M., “Siting the Accounting Problematic: Towards an Intellectual Emancipation of
Accounting”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 1977b, pp. 263–276.
Macdonald, K. M., “Occupational Registration: Status, Control and Monopoly”, Proceedings of the
Marks, J., Science and the Making of the Modern World (London: Heinemann, 1983).
Marsland, D., “Public Opinion and the Welfare State: Some Problems in the Interpretation of Facts”,
Sociology, 1984, pp. 83–87.
Marsland, D., Neglect and Betrayal: War and Violence in Modern Sociology (London: Institute of
European Defence and Strategic Studies, 1985).
Mautz, R. K. & Sharaf, H. A., The Philosophy of Auditing (Sarasota, FL: American Accounting
Association, 1961).
Miller, P., “How and Why Sociology Forgot Accounting”, Mimeo (London School of Economics, 2000).
Miller, P. & O’Leary, T., “Accounting and the Construction of the Governable Person”, Accounting,
Miller, P. & O’Leary, T., “Accounting, Economic Citizenship and the Spatial Reordering of Manufacturing”,
Montagna, P., Certified Public Accounting: a Sociological View of a Profession in Change (Houston:
Scholars, 1974).
Moore, D., “Accounting on Trial: the Critical Legal Studies Movement and Lessons for Radical
Accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1991, pp. 763–791.
Neimark, M., “The King is Dead, Long Live the King”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1990,
pp. 103–114.
Neimark, M., “Regicide Revisited: Marx, Foucault and Accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
1994, pp. 87–108.
Oakes, L. S., Townley, B. & Cooper, D. J., “Business Planning as Pedagogy: Language and Control in a
Changing Institutional Field”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998, pp. 257–292.
Paton, W. A., Accounting Theory (New York: Ronald, 1922).
Preston, A., Cooper, D. J. & Coombes, R. W., “Fabricating Budgets: a Study of the Production
of Management Budgeting in the National Health Studies”, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
1992, pp. 561–593.
Pugh, D. S. & Hickson, D. J., Organizational Structure in its Context: the Aston Programme I (London:
Gower, 1976).
Pugh, D. S. & Hinings, C. R. (eds), Organization Structure—Extensions and Replications: the Aston
Programme II (London: Gower, 1976).
Puxty, A. G. & Laughlin, R. C., “A Rational Reconstruction of the Decision-Usefulness Criterion”, Journal
of Business Finance and Accounting, 1983, pp. 543–559.
Reiter, S., “The Ethics of Care and New Paradigms for Accounting Practice”, Accounting, Auditing and
Ritchie, J., “Accounting for Small Business: a Social and Organizational Perspective”, Proceedings of the
Robson, K., “Governing Science and Economic Growth at a Distance: Accounting Representation and
the Management of Research and Development”, Economy and Society, 1993, pp. 461–481.
Rosenberg, D., Tomkins, C. & Day, P., “A Work Role Perspective on Accountants in Local Government
Service Departments”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1982, pp. 123–138.
Roslender, R., “Sociology and Management Accounting Research”, British Accounting Review, 1990,
pp. 351–372.
Roslender, R., Sociological Perspectives on Modern Accountancy (London: Routledge, 1992).
Roslender, R., “Critical Accounting and the Labour of Accountants”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
1996a, pp. 461–484.
Roslender, R., “Relevance Lost and Found: Critical Perspectives on the Promise of Management
Accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1996b, pp. 533–561.
Scott, D. R., The Cultural Significance of Accounts (Lawrence, KS: Scholars, 1933).
Seal, W. & Vincent-Jones, P., “Accounting and Trust in the Enabling of Long-Term Relationships”,
Shaoul, J., “Engagement, Education, and Sustainability: a Review Essay on Environmental Accounting”,
Silverman, D., The Theory of Organisations (London: Heinemann, 1970).
Thompson, G., “Inflation Accounting in a Theory of Calculation”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on Accounting Conference, Manchester, July 1985.
Tinker, A. M., “Towards a Political Economy of Accounting: an Empirical Illustration of the Cambridge
Controversies”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1980, pp. 147–160.
Tinker, T., “The Withering of Criticism: a Review of Professional, Foucauldian, Ethnographic and
Epistemic Studies in Accounting”, Proceedings of the Sixth Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Accounting Conference, Manchester, July 2000.
Tinker, A. M. & Lowe, E. A., “Some Empirical Evidence Related to the Superordinate Integrator”, Journal
of Management Studies, 1978, pp. 88–105.
Tinker, A. M. & Lowe, E. A., “A Rationale for Corporate Reporting: Theory and Evidence form
Organizational Research”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 1980, pp. 1–17.
Tinker, T. & Koutsoumadi, A., “A Mind is a Wonderful Thing to Waste: Think Like a Commodity”,
Tinker, A. M., Merino, B. & Neimark, M. D., “The Normative Origins of Positive Theories: Ideology and
Accounting Thought”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1982, pp. 167–200.
Tomkins, C., Rosenberg, D. & Colville, I., “The Social Process of Research: Some Reflections
on Developing a Multidisciplinary Accounting Project”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1980,
pp. 247–262.
Tomkins, C. & Groves, R., “The Everyday Accountant and Researching His Reality”, Accounting,
Wardell, M. & Weisenfeld, L. W., “Management Accounting and the Workplace in the United States and
Great Britain”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1991, pp. 655–670.
Watts, R. & Zimmerman, G., Positive Accounting Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986).
Whitley, R., “The Rise of Modern Finance Theory: its Characteristics as a Scientific Field and
Connections to the Changing Structure of Capital Markets”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on Accounting Conference, Manchester, July 1985.
Williams, P. F. & Rogers, J. L., “The Accounting Review and the Production of Accounting Knowledge”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1995, pp. 263–287.

Roslender & Dillard - Reflection On The Interdisiplianary....

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roslender & Dillard - Reflection On The Interdisiplianary....

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roslender & Dillard - Reflection On The Interdisiplianary....

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Perspectives on Accounting (2003) 14, 325–351

REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERDISCIPLINARY

The purpose of the interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting (IPA) project is

Received 23 August 2000; revised 16 March 2001; accepted 4 November 2001

research is seen as more rigorous and scientific, thus deserving privileged

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting

philosophy, political science, social psychology, organizational behaviour, contin-

Precontemporary interdisciplinary accounting research

Traditionally, the non-technical means, or lens, for viewing accounting was

Behavioural accounting as the first interdisciplinary programme for accounting

While behavioural accounting unquestionably broke new ground, its psychology

Sociology’s metadisciplinary perspective was probably what initially attracted the

a major impact on management control research, giving rise to the organizational

Burrell and Morgan (1979) describe contingency theory as an example of

Scholars of the behavioural in accounting, for instance, would have to be prepared to

The turning point?

The rest, as they say, is history

hundred participants. At a more local level, the British Accounting Association

Gathering our Thoughts (or Simply Being Explicit)

critical accounting project on the basis of its express commitment to a radical

What comes next: affirming the case for an enabling accounting

An analysis of this definition is in order. It is instructive to begin with the

An important characteristic of an enabling accounting is its ability to act as a force for

An enabling accounting can be viewed as an example of a critical theory for

Beyond the Bunker

In order to construct a genuinely enabling accounting, it is necessary for all who

The research community

The University provides an admirable place to begin the process of persuading

The consultancy role

In addition to being academics, critical accountants are also members of society,

You might also like