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