Content area
Full Text
Paolo Quattrone: Manchester School of Accounting and Finance, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: I am grateful to the reviewer of the 1997 IPA Conference where an earlier version of the paper was presented and to the two anonymous referees for the constructive comments provided. I also wish to thank my PhD supervisor Professor Claudio Lipari and Professor Trevor Hopper for their constant support in revising the paper. I would also like to acknowledge those who gave me advice and suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript: Professors Mahmoud Ezzamel, Anthony Hopwood, Keith Hoskin, Norman Machintosh, Lee Parker, Bob Scapens, Luca Zan, Dr Marcia Annisette, Dr John Burns, Dr Chris Westrup. Responsibility for mistakes and omissions remains mine.
"Time never dies, the circle is not round, ...Time doesn't wait because the circle is not round. (from Before the Rain, by Milcho Mancevsky, 1994)"
Introduction
This paper speculates about the potential of the constructivism of Piaget (1967a, 1967b, 1970, 1977) and Morin (1977, 1985) to offer a framework which goes beyond dualisms and fragmentation in accounting research. Such a framework is timely because it is apparent that accounting research and knowledge have splintered into many divergent and incommensurable perspectives, each with their own epistemologies (Kuhn, 1970)[1].
In accounting research, these range from new cost accounting techniques for management (e.g. Mackey and Thomas, 1995) to philosophical works such as critical accounting (e.g. Laughlin, 1987; Cooper and Hopper, 1987, 1990); or from economic perspectives such as agency and transaction cost theories (e.g. Baiman, 1982, 1990) to postmodernist histories of cost accounting (e.g. Hoskin and Macve, 1986; Hopwood, 1987). Moreover, several accounting studies have illustrated sharp contrasts within the literature: rational (or scientific) versus natural (or naturalistic) models (Abdel-khalik and Ajinkya, 1979, 1983; Boland and Pondy, 1983; Tomkins and Groves, 1983); conventional versus naturalistic research (e.g. Hopper et al., 1987); objectivist versus subjectivist research (e.g. Boland, 1989); positive versus normative research (e.g. Tinker et al., 1982).
As a result, each perspective yields only a narrow slice of the accounting world. Publications trying to bridge these oppositions and avoid fragmentation (e.g. Birkin, 1996; Johnson, 1995; Machintosh and Scapens, 1990) are increasing in number. This paper constitutes a further attempt in this direction. It suggests that reasons for the existence...