Reviewed by Nola Buhr Binghamton University
If you were to pick up this book and begin at the beginning, you might expect that Accounting, a Multipamdigmatic Science was going to describe accounting research from a broad social science perspective. You might also expect to find a discussion of the growth and struggle, over the last 25 years, of such emergent areas as: behavioral accounting; accounting history; social and environmental accounting; and critical perspective accounting. Such a misapprehension arises because the first chapter of the book provides a succinct description of Kuhn’s view (1970) of paradigms, the Burrell and Morgan (1979) four paradigm framework and a Jungian typology (1971) of accounting researchers. RiahiBelkaoui even discusses political economy accounting.
Unfortunately, what has the potential to be an interesting read turns into a very dry overview of 30 years of the findings of mainstream accounting. The author chooses to ignore the foundation laid in chapter one and instead develops a set of five paradigms based on the state of accounting in the mid 1970s. No explanation or justification for the delineation of the five accounting paradigms is offered, other than the comment that it follows suggestions made by Wells (1976) and the American Accounting Association (1977).
The five chosen paradigms are:
(1) The Anthropological/Inductive Paradigm;
(2) The True Income/Deductive Paradigm;
(3) The Decision Usefulness/Decision Model Paradigm;
(4) The Decision Usefulness/Decision Maker/Aggregate Market Behavior Paradigm; and
(5) The Decision Usefulness/Decision Maker/Individual User Paradigm.
The remainder of the book consists of five chapters, each of which is devoted to one of the five paradigms. The Anthropological/Inductive Paradigm consists primarily of information economics, agency theory and positive accounting theory. Given the nature of this research it is not surprising that there: is nary a mention of qualitative research techniques, even though the paradigm is classified as being anthropological and inductive in nature. The chapter on the True Income/Deductive Paradigm covers all the combinations and permutations of current value accounting. The level of detail is excessive for overviewing the research stream but not sufficient for use as a teaching tool. The third paradigm deals with bankruptcy prediction models and the fourth paradigm deals with capital markets research. The Decision Usefulness/Decision Maker/Individual User Paradigm includes cognitive based behavioral research, international accounting and management accounting. This is the only chapter where the reader is exposed to anything other than financial accounting.
The book suffers from what is only a minimal effort at analysis and synthesis. Noticeably absent is a concluding chapter that might offer some general thoughts about where accounting research has been and where it is headed. Much of the accounting research which has developed in the last 25 years and is typified by new journals, new conferences and new sections of the American Accounting Association is largely ignored throughout the book. It is only in the concluding two sentences of the book that the author refers, very briefly, to the struggle of new accounting research streams to gain acceptance:
The paradigm has gained a good measure of legitimacy in accounting research as evidenced by the large number of studies examining behavioral implications in the accounting environment. A good grounding in the social sciences is necessary for the survival of this paradigm and its eventual acceptance by policy makers, [p. 174]
On a less important note, the book has an irritating number of typographical errors and repeated lines of text that cry out for a good copy editor.
According to the forward, Accounting, a Multiparadigmatic Science promises to serve two purposes: (1) act as a guide to the accounting literature and (2) serve as a textbook to be used in research methodology and accounting theory courses. Are these purposes met? To a certain extent, yes. The book does serve as a wellreferenced bibliographic guide. It can be used as a solid starting point for someone intent on pursuing the dominant paradigm(s) of mainstream financial accounting. However, if you are looking for a book which examines accounting from a broad social sciences perspective, one which covers the struggle of emergent streams in accounting and examines a full range of accounting areas and research methodologies, this is not the book for you.
American Accounting Association, Committee on Concepts and Standards for External Financial Reports: Statement on Accounting Theory and Theory Acceptance, Sarasota, Florida: American Accounting Association, 1977.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, London: Heinemann, 1979.
Jung, C. G., Collected Works, Vol. 6, Psychological Types, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1971.
Kuhn, T. S., The Structure, of Scientific Revolution. 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Wells, M. C, “A Revolution in Accounting Thought,” Accounting Review, July 1976, pp. 471482.
