Prologue to An Invitation to Accounting History by David Forrester (página 2)

We historians have always known that objectivity was not
within our reach. Objectivity was a goal, the path that led us
towards it. However, this did not prevent us from trying to
achieve it. Thus, our teachers taught us that we were to describe
and analyse events with rigor. As is known, although analysis is
also descriptive, it goes beyond description in that it does not
only expose the external appearance of phenomena, but delves into
them and studies their structure, the elements of which they are
comprised, the role they play and the relationship which binds
them. In our exposition, we were to strictly and clearly separate
description and analysis from our interpretation and explanation
of events, so that our readers could distinguish between where
the description ended and our interpretation and
contextualisation began. They warned us not to allow ourselves to
be caught in this process by the dream of objectivity in the
description and analysis: the mere fact of choosing a subject to
describe, of starting from one extreme or the other in doing so,
to explain its appearance or structure, was already a very
subjective process, involving our preferences, our concepts, the
value element contained in our language. But, despite all these
imperfections, we were to aim for maximum neutrality, maximum
objectivity in the process, that is, maximum transmission
capacity, in the knowledge that however much effort we made, we
would never be able to transmit knowledge in the same way that a
physical object is passed from one person"s hands to
another"s.

As I mentioned earlier, because it can never be
achieved, the search for objectivity has fallen into discredit
today and this has put the emphasis of historical research on the
interpretation and explanation of events, through
contextualisation and the application of the relevant theoretical
apparatus. This approach should be applauded, but not to the
point of relegating the exposition, description and analysis of
events to second place. When all is said and done, although there
may not be absolute evidence of objectivity in the presentation
of facts, they constitute the primary information that must be
known, interpreted, explained, contextualised, and evaluated in
the light of the relevant theory. Moreover, no matter how
precarious the degree of objectivity that can be achieved in
presenting and narrating an event, it will always be greater than
the objectivity attributable to its interpretation, explanation,
contextualisation and evaluation, since these processes are by
their very nature more subjective. History doctorate candidates
at any German university learnt from the beginning that if a
doctoral thesis were to be passed, they either had to present
unknown facts, through the localisation and use of neue
Quellen, i.e. new sources, or make a new formulation or
different Fragestellung of known facts. Obviously, when
the rank of the problems was equal, the presentation of new facts
took preference. This should also be the case in new accounting
history, however much importance its followers wish to give, and
should give, to the interpretative and contextual part, which is
what really throws greater more meaningful light on the facts.
But it is not a good idea to exaggerate things: first comes the
presentation, description and analysis of events and then the
interpretation and explanation of them. If not, with so much
interpretation, we may find ourselves with a great deal of
sociological analysis and little history.

It is true that many followers of new accounting history
recognise the importance of archives in their research. The fact
is that, despite everything, research in archives continues to
preserve a good part of its legendary importance. Carnegie and
Napier go so far as to say that without being soundly based on
archives, accounting history would probably lose its aim and its
direction. And that is effectively so. But it is not only this
that matters. What matters in this context is that the study,
presentation, description and analysis of new facts, either
discovered in the archives, i.e. from manuscripts, or thanks to
some other type of primary source, cannot be neglected in any way
under the pretext that they are "antiquarian" practices. Quite
the contrary, since facts, with all the limitations and
insufficiencies the study of them may present, are the basis of
all history work. One day the validity of this proposition will
once again be fully recognised. For this reason, any work which
bring s new facts to the community of historians must be
appreciated and respected, especially if it has involved
conscientious research in the archives. Here, as in everything,
balance and discernment is needed; work cannot be discredited out
of hand, repeating like a fashionable parrot: "It is only
descriptive". As any researcher with specific historiographical
training knows, and I am not referring to the indiscriminate
discovery of(work in the archives one or two documents- is very
hard, although it is one of the most fascinating tasks in the
world of history. This respect and appreciation of work which
presents new facts must be maintained, even if the work does not
offer, for whatever reason, the interpretations,
contextualisations and theoretical evaluations that might be
desired in the light of the ideas of "new accounting history".
These could come later, from the same or a different author. The
important thing is that the facts have been rescued from oblivion
and they are there , at the disposal of the community of
accounting historians.

Moreover, we should not forget that it is often
necessary to say exactly what is meant when we talk about
applying the relevant theoretical apparatus to the interpretation
and evaluation of facts, since sometimes a mere hypothesis or
tentative explanation of simple behaviours is understood by the
term theory. Thus, on occasion, the theoretical apparatus is
reduced to no more than a temporary explanatory apparatus. When
the question is understood in these terms, the valuation of the
application of the theoretical apparatus may be considerably
undermined.

6. The temptation of
bureaucratisation.

Broadly speaking, Hamerow called bureaucratisation the
process through which historians were creating a little world of
their own, an institutionalised world restricted to the academic
environment and even to the national academic environment. They
were shutting themselves off in there, ignoring life outside its
walls and losing contact with public opinion. In this world there
was no room for anyone other than specialists in the subject,
academics recognised by established authorities. Within this
closed world, research was conducted for colleagues and more for
reasons of virtuosity or curriculum requirements than from a
desire to acquire and transmit knowledge. In it, fashions were
welcomed with open arms as a means of gaining a reputation and
jumping onto the avant-garde bandwagon. In a world like this, it
was easy to lose the values characteristic of scientific
activity, such as independence, criterion or personality, and
immerse oneself in gregariousness and fashion-following, a
process which, thro ugh reaction, led to disintegration and the
search for originality as a way of standing out and attracting
colleagues" attention. There are signs of this starting to occur
amongst accounting historians. Another sign of a possible
movement in this direction is also to be found in the more and
more frequent and accepted tendency to give papers ostentatious
bombastic titles, which promise much more than the research
actually offers, thus going against the healthy precepts our old
teachers instilled in us, when they taught us that scientific
integrity required that titles be a faithful reflection of the
contents of the papers they headed and, in any event, not raise
false expectations. Perhaps all of this is no more than an
inevitable development, given the existing university structures
and the way of entering the universities and achieving promotion.
But it would be worth trying not to fall into these errors or, at
least, not to fall headfirst.

7. The temptation of methodological
reductionism.

When we dealt with other temptations, particularly the
temptations of exclusivity and redemptorism, of
dogmatism and the undervaluation of the study and
description of facts, we already talked about new accounting
historians" propensity to impose limits on themselves as regards
the use of possible methodologies, using only some of them and
using them with almost exclusive intensity and preference,
instead of taking advantage of all the methodologies available as
far as possible in a balanced manner. There does not seem to be
any reason for this to be inevitably so. One thing is the spirit
and the ideas with which problems are approached and a very
different thing is to voluntarily choose not to use some of the
methodological instruments available to us. In principle, it
seems that, no matter what label we wish to ascribe to, whenever
possible we should try to choose the subjects to be studied in
our research according to a criterion consistent with a
hypothesis or theoretical approach: we must know what we would
like to study and why. Once this is known, we would have to
locate and present new sources, describe and analyse the facts
found in these sources with the detail and rigour necessary for
the reader to be able to understand and assimilate them; then we
should explain and interpret these facts in accordance with their
context, using in the process the theoretical apparatus available
for this and putting them into the theoretical framework
previously exposed. In all of this procedure, we would pay
special attention to whether the facts presented implied
evolutive continuity with respect to the previous historical
moment or moments, or whether, on the contrary, they represented
a break with that moment, a discontinuity, an interruption,
investigating in any event the causes and circumstances.
Moreover, we would have to carefully examine whether the facts
studied might involve situations or motives of domination and
power, of discipline, vigilance and supervision, etc., beyond
purely economic motives. Lastly, we should not forget to analyse
whether some factor from the accounting context influencing the
shape of the social, economic and political environment can be
deduced from the facts investigated. In addition, in this
research process, we would, logically enough, have to consider
the possible economic, social, business and financial content of
the sources and facts studied. Thus, for instance, when we study
account books, we should not neglect the analysis of the
operations and businesses recorded in them, or the analysis of
all the information they might provide with respect to the
company that owns the books and with regard to the corresponding
economic sector, studying it all in the light of the theories and
knowledge about these subjects at the time analysed, in an
exercise of business, financial or economic history.

However, we should be aware of the fact that it will not
always be possible to conduct complete investigations of this
type, either because there may be limited sources or because of
the conditioning factors of the period or the subject itself. In
such cases, we will have to be flexible enough to know how to
limit ourselves and apply the methodology most suited to the
possibilities we have at our disposal. This adjustment to the
limitations imposed by each specific piece of research has, of
course, nothing to do with preconceived deliberate
self-limitation deriving from the desire to adjust to a certain
trend.

8. The temptation of thematic
reductionism.

In the case of new accounting historians,
methodological reductionism is often accompanied by
thematic reductionism, in the sense that they opt for
certain themes which give them the opportunity to more naturally
apply the approaches preferred by their trend. For this reason,
at this moment in time, subjects such as management accounting
are particularly in vogue for the reasons mentioned above, as are
subjects related to the training and consolidation processes of
the accounting profession, with the creation of professional
institutions, the regulations to be applied in internal and
external accounting and financial information, with its influence
on public appreciation of companies, etc. In contrast, there
seems to be a kind of weariness with subjects which had always
been the main source of interest for accounting historians, i.e.
the origins of double-entry and modern accounting, the original
accounting treatises, etc. New historians seem to feel a special
repugnance for research which establishes the superiority of one
accounting instrument or concept over another and for anything
which seems to be a race towards the achievement of current
standards. They feel that all of this is water under the bridge
and a faithful reflection of an "antiquarian" and "Whig"
conception of history, i.e. of a conception which, taking the
present as the measure of everything, approves or disapproves of
men and facts of the past, according to whether or not they have
favoured evolution towards the situation today.

As I said earlier, I believe that the fact that
accounting history is being opened up towards new horizons is
very positive. Our discipline would really have had little future
if it had continued to be always limited to questions, such as
the origins of double-entry or other issues related to purely
technical problems. However, I cannot agree that these questions
be displaced from the centres of interest by pejorative
attitudes. There is still much work to do here, especially in
relation to possible contributions from the Oriental and Muslim
world, but also in relation to the majority of European
countries. Thus, it does not seem reasonable that the new themes,
instead of enriching the repertory of existing subjects, should
come to expel earlier themes. But this will undoubtedly be a
transitory attitude.

9. The temptation of reductionism of
time.

The temptations of methodological reductionism
and thematic reductionism lead, in turn, to the
temptation of reductionism of time, since the subjects
which arouse the greatest interest and which, to a certain
extent, condition the methodology to be employed, largely occur
in a certain time frame. Hence, new research focuses, above all,
on questions related to the 19th and 20th centuries. The same can
be said about this as I said in previous sections: the effort to
study themes related to these centuries is welcomed, provided
that the research which focused on earlier periods is not
spurned. Moreover, we must not deceive ourselves about the
reasons for this: these are the centuries which require less
mastery of specific auxiliary instruments of history, such as
palaeography, knowledge about the numeration, coins, weights and
measures of the period and country studied, the techniques of
archival research, knowledge of the historical environment, et
c.; although these disciplines are not difficult to learn, they
produce some apprehension in researchers who have no specific
historiographical training, which is the case of the majority of
new accounting historians. This may have something to do with the
preference mentioned above, although it does not seem to be a
suitable or decisive reason.

10. The temptation of linguistic
reductionism.

The immense majority of the work shaping the current
explosion of interest in accounting history is written in
English. Moreover, the presentation and practice of the ideas
which constitute "new accounting history" were conducted in
English by researchers from this linguistic environment,
especially by researchers from Great Britain and former
Commonwealth countries. The North American researchers grouped
around The Academy of Accounting Historians have been
less enthusiastic and more cautious about discarding traditional
practices and throwing themselves into the arms of the new
postulates. Naturally, this does not mean that they are not open
to the new ideas, but simply that, so far, their attitude has
been less revolutionary and more integrative. The debates about
the ideas of "new" and "traditional" accounting history have also
largely been conducted in English. Consequently, we accounting
historians from other cultural and linguistic environments are
extremely grateful to English-speaking researchers for the
interest they have aroused in our discipline in recent times.
Having recognised this, it should also be said that, generally
speaking, the displacement of the driving force of accounting
history research to English-speaking countries has led to a clear
lack of interest on the part of researchers from this linguistic
environment in work done in other languages. Hardly any of the
bibliographies included in the works of English-speaking
historians mention work written in other languages. This, which
is in no way exclusive to the supporters of "new accounting
history", must be seen as a serious handicap which forces
historians from other cultural areas into ostracism or obliges
them to present their papers at congresses and publish their
works in English, with the consequent limitations and
deficiencies when it comes to exactly and accurately describing
their thought. This issue is particularly serious in relation to
the epistemological and methodological debate which is currently
in progress, as it may lead the most passionate supporters of
"new accounting history", especially at the oral discussions and
talks held in congresses, to the dangerous conviction that the
lack of response to their arguments is because they cannot be
contested, when it may really be due to the inhibitions of non
English-speaking participants because of the difficulty involved
in having a serious discussion in a foreign language. Moreover,
the lack of interest for work done in languages other than
English is also a stimulus to the reduction of thematic areas
from a linguistic standpoint, since the areas which require the
knowledge of a different language do not come into
play.

English-speaking historians themselves are aware of this
situation and some of them, such as Robert H. Parker, have raised
the alarm and denounced it. Indeed, the journal Accounting,
Business and Financial History decided to run a regular
section with the idea of annually including, by turns, an article
which reviewed the work published in the last four years in
Spanish, French, Italian and German. The initiative is laudable,
but is not enough to resolve the situation, which, incidentally,
does not seem easy to solve, since the solution something(would
be for English-speaking researchers to learn foreign languages
that does not seem too likely at the moment, as we mentioned
earlier. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that, to some
extent, this situation is related to the context described in the
section on the temptation of
bureaucratisation.

These, then, are my personal thoughts on the current
state of accounting history research and on the debate which has
arisen in the field of accounting history between new and
traditional historians, a debate which is, as I said, no more
than the delayed transposition of the general discussion on
historical sciences. These thoughts were inspired by a desire
that "new accounting history" would not limit itself to being
just another new trend, based on originality and fashion, which
will be displaced in a few years or a few decades" time by
"post-new accounting history". I believe that, on the contrary,
it would be beneficial to our discipline if "new accounting
history" wished to seriously assume the role of a renovated
global framework which, bringing its ideas and way of
understanding accounting history, would welcome, purify and
integrate the postulates of so-called "traditional" history.
Thus, works like the ones by David A.R. Forrester contained in
this book would never be out of date and would continue to enrich
the heritage of accounting historians of the next millennium, in
the same way they have enriched the patrimony of historians in
the last thirty years of the 20th century.

Autor:

Esteban Hernández Esteve