Search results

There is increasing academic pressure on Departments of Accounting in South Africa whose academic programmes are accredited with the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA). The reason for this that the academic training of potential chartered accountants has long been their main academic focus, and they often fail to do justice to their real academic mission of scholarly activity in accounting (the pursuit of science as an endeavour), which is central to the essence of a university. The quality of such departments’ research is not yet an important criterion for their prestige. However, only Departments of Accounting that develop Accounting as a social science in scholarly activity in accounting deserve international recognition. This empirical study attempts to convince Departments of Accounting, particularly those whose academic programmes are accredited by SAICA, to embark on scholarly activity in accounting as soon as possible.

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (2001), 15 percent of entering freshmen believe that there is a good chance they will change their college major and 8 percent are undecided. To gain insight into the criteria that students use to select a major, a model of the student decision making process was developed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This model predicted student’s first choice major with 88 percent accuracy for sophomores and seniors. An analysis of the criteria revealed judgement inconsistencies, particularly for accounting, finance, and decision science majors. Not surprisingly, sophomores were more inconsistent in their decision making than were seniors. It was also determined that students clustered the majors into two separate groups, viewing accounting, finance and decision science majors differently than marketing and management majors

Capitalism, religion and science (including calculative sciences such as accounting) have a long and turbulent relationship that, today, is manifest in the “War on Terror”. As social ideologies, religion and science have played a sometimes decisive influence in the history of capitalism. What can one learn from these past encounters to better understand their relationship today? This paper explores the historical origins of this relationship as a struggle over the ideals of the Enlightenment: – as decline of the modern and the rise of the postmodern. The paper begins by tracing the evolution of Christianities and their different potentials in both resisting and accommodating the extant social order. Islam, in contrast, has,until recently, enjoyed a relatively sheltered existence from capitalism, and today, some factions present a militant stance against the market and the liberal democratic state. Overall, the Enlightenment and modernist projects are judged to be jeopardy – a condition fostered by orthodox economics and accounting ideology, where it is now de rigueur to divide the secular from the non‐secular, the normative from the positive, and the ethical from the pragmatic or realist. Finally, the mechanisms behind this Enlightenment regression are examined here using literary analysis, as a modest prelude to developing a new politics for a progressive accounting; one that seeks to restore the integrity and probity of the Enlightenment Ideal.

The field, currently termed “accounting”, constitutes a confused mix of accounting theories, accounting techniques, and accounting practices. This confusion is clearly reflected in accounting curriculum. Parallel to this confusion is a confusion at the sociological level, where the roles of academicians and those of practitioners are confusingly interchanged. These confusions represent conceptual and practical barriers to the ongoing efforts to develop the discipline.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a response to a comment written by Richard Laughlin on a previous paper by the authors, which appeared in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume 23 Number 6.

The paper addresses three issues central to the analysis of the comment on their past paper.

In addressing each of the issues in turn the authors clarify their analysis.

The paper provides an argument for the development of a paradigm for accounting practice derived from the use of pragmatic constructivism.

The purpose of this paper is to interrogate the nature and relevance of debates around the existence of, and ramifications arising from, the Anthropocene for accounting scholarship.

The paper’s aim is achieved through an in-depth analysis of the Anthropocene, paying attention to cross-disciplinary contributions, interpretations and contestations. Possible points of connection between the Anthropocene and accounting scholarship are then proposed and illuminated through a case study drawn from the seafood sector.

This paper develops findings in two areas. First, possible pathways for further development of how accounting scholarship might evolve by the provocation that thinking about the Anthropocene is outlined. Second, and through engagement with the case study, the authors highlight that the concept of stewardship may re-emerge in discussions about accountability in the Anthropocene.

The paper argues that accounting scholarship focused on social, environmental and sustainability concerns may be further developed by engagement with Anthropocene debates.

While accounting practice might have to change to deal with Anthropocene induced effects, this paper focuses on implications for accounting scholarship.

Human well-being is likely to be impacted if environmental impacts accelerate. In addition, an Anthropocene framing alters the understanding of nature–human interactions and how this affects accounting thought.

This is the first paper in accounting to seek to establish connections between accounting, accountability and the Anthropocene.

The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesise academic research in environmental accounting and demonstrate its shortcomings. It provokes scholars to rethink their conceptions of “accounts” and “nature”, and alongside others in this AAAJ special issue, provides the basis for an agenda for theoretical and empirical research that begins to “ecologise” accounting.

Utilising a wide range of thought from accounting, geography, sociology, political ecology, nature writing and social activism, the paper provides an analysis and critique of key themes associated with 40 years research in environmental accounting. It then considers how that broad base of work in social science, particularly pragmatic sociology (e.g. Latour, Boltanksi and Thévenot), could contribute to reimagining an ecologically informed accounting.

Environmental accounting research overwhelmingly focuses on economic entities and their inputs and outputs. Conceptually, an “information throughput” model dominates. There is little or no environment in environmental accounting, and certainly no ecology. The papers in this AAAJ special issue contribute to these themes, and alongside social science literature, indicate significant opportunities for research to begin to overcome them.

This paper outlines and encourages the advancement of ecological accounts and accountabilities drawing on conceptual resources across social sciences, arts and humanities. It identifies areas for research to develop its interdisciplinary potential to contribute to ecological sustainability and social justice.

How to “ecologise” accounting and conceptualise human and non-human entities has received little attention in accounting research. This paper and AAAJ special issue provides empirical, practical and theoretical material to advance further work.