Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-fnprw Total loading time: 0.387 Render date: 2022-08-11T09:08:30.473Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

From the Science of Accounts to the Financial Accountability of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Michael Power
Affiliation:
Department of Accounting and FinanceThe London School of Economics and Political Science

Abstract

This introductory essay describes some intellectual intersections between the history and sociology of science and the history and sociology of accounting. These intersections suggest a potential field of inquiry that concerns itself explicitly with science and economic calculation, a potential that is partly realized in the essays that follow. It is possible to describe a broad shift from concerns for the scientific credentials of accounting to a recognition of the constitutive role that accounting plays for science. In other words the so-called cultural hegemony of the scientist is giving way to that of the accountant. This shift has a number of loosely related but complementary elements. The first is to be found in some recent historical work that links ideals of scientific objectivity to administrative and political values. A second element is a body of work that is critical of theorydominant approaches to experiment and concerns itself with laboratory practice in social context. A third element is an emerging interest in the economics of science. I argue that such a program is weak where it abstracts from processes of economic calculation, and this suggests the fourth element: a contextual approach to economic calculation to be found in sociologically informed accounting research. In the light of these four elements, the essay concludes by considering directly the implications of accounting for science, particularly given recent initiatives to make science more accountable.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Accounting Association (AAA). 1966.A Statement of Basic Accounting Theory. Enanston, III.: American Accounting Association.Google Scholar
Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor: Chicago: chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, Andrew 1993. “The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space.” British Journal for the History of Science 26:459–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettelheim, C. 1976. Economic Calculation and Forms of Property. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bijker, Wiebe, Thomas, Hughes, and Trevor, Pinch, eds. 1987. The Social construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progess of Reason.” Social Science Information 14 (6): 1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunnson, Nils. 1989. The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Action in Orgaizations. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter, Keating, and Michael, mackenzie. 1990. “Scientific practice in the Courtoroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biotechnology Patent Dispute.” Social Problems 37 (3): 275–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Brian and Mark, Dirsmith. 1993. “Sampling and the Abstaction of Knowledge in the Auditing Profession: An Extended Institutional Theory Perspective.” Accounting, Organizationas and Society 18 (1): 4163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, Bruce, and Wendy, Espeland. 1991. “Accounting for Rationality: Double-entry bookkeeping and the Rhetoric of Economic Rationality.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (1): 3169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassidy, Marie, and Adil, Shamoo. 1989First International Conference on Scientific Data Audit, Policies and Quality Assurance.” Accountability in Research: Plicies and Quality Assurance 1:13.Google Scholar
Chambers, Ray. 1991. Foundations of Accounting. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cooper, David, and Michael, Sherer. 1984. “The Value of Corporate Reports: Arguments for a Political Economy of Accounting.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 9 (3/4): 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzens, S. E. 1986. “Funding and knowledge Growth.” Social Studies of Science 16:921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 1992. “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective.” Social Studies of Science 22:597618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 1994. “Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity.” In Rethinking Objectivity, edited by Alan, Megill, 3764. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Dennis, Michael. 1987. “Accounting for Research: New Histories of Corporate Laboratories and the Social History of American Science.” Social Studies of Science 17:479518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desrosières, Alain, 1994. “Official Statistics and Business: History, Classification, Uses.” In Information Acumen, edited by Lisa, Bud-Frierman, 168186. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dixon-long, T. 1971. “The Government of Science: A Comparative Approach.” Science Studies, 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, Nigel. 1994. The Sociology of Money: Economics, Reason and Contemporary Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary. 1987. How Institutions Think. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Edwards, John. 1989. A History of Financial Accounting. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forrester, David. 1990. “Rational Administration, Finance and Control Accounting: the Experience of Cameralism.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 1:285317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Jere. 1989. “The Credibility and Legitimation of Science: A Loss of Faith in the Scientific Narrative.” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 1:522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraud and Suspicion in Science.” 1992. Times Higher Education Supplement, 4 September.Google Scholar
Fuller, Steve. 1992. “Social Epistemology and the Research Agenda of Science Studies.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew, pickering, 390428. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1988. “History, Philosophy and the Central Metaphor.” Science in Context 2 (1): 197212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gansler, Jacques. 1982. The Defense Industry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1990. The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagstrom, Warren. 1965. The Scientific Community. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Hands, Wade. 1994. “The Sociology of Sciology of Scientific Knowledge and Economics: Some Thouhts on the Possibilities.” In New Directions in Econmic Methodology, edited by Roger, Backhouse, 75106. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hausman, Willian, and John, Neufeld. 1989. “Engineers and Economists: Historical Perspectives on the Pricing of Electricity.” Technology and Culture 83104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, Ruth. 1988. “In communicating Reality We Construct Reality.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (3): 251–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, Anthony. 1987. “The Archaeology of Accounting Systems.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 12:207–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, Anthony. 1992. “Accounting Calculation and the Shifting Sphere of the Economic.” European Accounting Review 1 (1): 125–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, Anthony, and Peter, Miller, eds. 1994. Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoskin, Keith, and Richard, Macve. 1993. “Accounting as Discipline: The Over-looked Supplement.” In Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity, edited by Messer-Davidow, E, Shumway, D. R., and Sylvan, D., 2553. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Thomas. 1979. “The Electrification of America: The System Builders.” Technology and Culture 20:125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ijiri, Yuji, and Robert, Jaedicke. 1966. “Reliability and Objectivity of Accounting Measurements.” Accounting Review 41:474–83.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Shelia. 1987. “Contested Boundaries in Policy Relevant Science.” Social Studies of Science 17:195230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Lin. 1992. “Chinese Double-entry Bookkeeeping before the Nineteenth Century.” The Accounting Historian's Journal 19 (2): 103122.Google Scholar
Klamer, Arjo, and Donald, McCloskey. 1992. “Accounting as the Master Metaphor of Economics.” Europen Accounting Review 1 (1): 145–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin 1982. “Scientific Communities or Transepistemic Arenas of Research? A Critique of Quasi-economic Models of Science.” Social Studies of Science 12:101–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Follette, Marcel. 1992. Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Steve, Woolgar. 1982. “Cycles of Credit.” In Science in Context, Barry, Barnes and David, Edge, 3543. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean. 1986. “The Values of Quanitification.” In Power, Action, Belif: A New Sociology of Knowledge, John, Law, 88111. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lenoir, Timothy. 1988. “practice, Reason, Context: The Dialogue between Theory and Experiment.” Science in Context 2(1): 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowood, Henry. 1990. “The Calculating Forester: Quantification, Cameral Science, and the Emergence of Scientific Forestry Management in Germany.” In The Quantifying Spirit in the Eighteenth Century, Tore, Frängsmyr, Heilbron, J. L., and Robin, Rider, 315–42. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lyas, Colin. 1984. “Philosphers and Accountants.” Philosophy 59(227): 99110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBarnet, Doreen, Syd, Weston, and Christopher, Whelan. 1993. “Adversary Accounting: Strategic Uses of Financial Information by Capital and Labour.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 18(1): 81100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGaw, Judith. 1985. “Accounting for Innovation: Technological Change and Business Practice in the Berkshire County Paper Industry.” Technology and Culture 26:703–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Donald, and Judy, Wajcman. 1985. “Introductory Essay.” In The Social Shaping of Technology, edited by Donald, Mackenzie and Judy, Wajcman, 225. Milton, Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Mattesich, Richard. 1989. “The Scientific Approach to Accounting.” In Modern Accounting Research: History, Survey and Guide, edited byRichard, Mattesich, 119. Canadian Certified Genearal Accountants' Research Foundation, Research Monograph No. 7. 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Mautz, Robert, and Hussein, Sharaf. 1961. The Philosophy of Auditing. Sarasota, Fla.: American Accounting Association.Google Scholar
Megill, Alan. 1994. “Introduction: Four Senses of Objectivity.” In Rethinking Objectivity, edited by Alan, Megill, 120. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, John, and Richard, Scott, eds. 1992. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Miller, Peter. 1991. “Accounting Innovation beyond the Enterprise: Problematizing Investment Decisions and Programming Economic Growth in the UK in the 1960s.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 16(8): 733–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Peter. 1994. “Accounting and Objectivity: The Invention of Calculable Selves and Calculable Spaces.” In Rethinking Objectivity, edited by Alan, Megill, 239–64. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Peter, and Christopher, Napier. 1993. “Genealogies of CalculationAccounting, Organizations and Society 18:631–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Peter, and Ted, O'Leary. 1987. “Accounting and the Construction of the Governable Person.” Accouting, Organizations and Society 12:235–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Peter, 1989. “Hierarchies and American Ideals 1900–1940.” Academy of Management Review 14(2): 250–65.Google Scholar
Miranti, Paul. 1986. “Associationalism, Statistics and Professional Regulation: Public Accountants and the Reform of Financial/Markets, 1896–1940.” Business History Review 60:438–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranti, Paul, 1988. “Professionalism and Nativism: The Competition in Securing Public Accountancy Legislation in New York during the 1890s.” Social Science Quarterly 69(2): 361–80.Google Scholar
Miranti, Paul, 1989. “The Mind's Eye of Reform: The ICC's Bureau of Statistics and Accounts and a Vision of Regulation, 1887–1940.” Business History Review 63:469509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1989. More Heat Than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montagna, Paul. 1990. “Accounting Rationality and Financial Legitimation.” In Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy, edited by Sharon, Zukin and Paul, DiMaggio, 227–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Glenn, and Hugh, Willmott. 1993. “The 'New' Accounting Research: On Making Accounting More Visible.” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 6(4): 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Mary. Forthcoming. “Evolutionary Metaphors in Explanations of American Industrial Competition.” In Nature as Society, Society as Nature: Metaphors, edited by Weingart, P., Mendelsohn, E., and Maason, S.. London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Mumford, Michael, and Kenneth, peasnell, eds. 1993. Philosophical Perspectives on Accounting: Essays in Honour of Edward Stamp. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Noble, David. 1977. America by Design: Science, technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. [1879] 1967. “Note on the Theory of the Economy of Research.” Operations Research 15:642–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Andrew. 1992. “From Science as Knowledge to Science as Practice.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew, pickering, 126. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Andrew. 1994. “Objectivity and the Mangle of Practice.” In Rethinking Objectivity, edited by Alan, Megill, 109–27. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore. 1992. “Quanitification and the Accounting Ideal in Science.” Social Studies of Science 22:633–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, Theodore. 1994. ”Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impresonality in Measurement, Statistics and Cost-Benefit Analysis.“ In Rethinking Objectivity, edited by Alan, Megill. 197238. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Walter, and Paul, DiMaggio. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, Michael. 1986. “Taking Stock: Philosophy and Accountancy.” Philosophy 61:387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, Michael. 1992 a. “After Calculation? Reflections on Critique of Economic Reason by André Gorz.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(5):477–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, Michael. 1992 b. “From Common Sense to Expertise: The Pre-history of Audit Sampling.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 17:3762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, Michael. 1992 c. “The Politics of Brand Accounting in the United Kingdom.” European Accounting Review 1(1):3968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, Michael. “The Audit Society.” In Hopwood and Miller 1994, 299316.Google Scholar
Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology. 1993. White Paper. Cm 2250. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Remington, J. 1988. “Beyond Big Science in America: The Binding of Inquiry.” Social Studies of Science 18:4572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorem, C. R. 1927. “Similarities of Accounting and Statistical Method”. Accounting Review 3:1018.Google Scholar
Rose, Nikolas. 1991. “Governing by Numbers: Figuring out Democracy.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 16:673–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Nikolas, and Peter, Miller. 1992. “Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government.” British Journal of Sociology 43(2): 173205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Scientists Call for Re-Trial on Evidence.” 1992. Times Higher Education Supplement, 10 January.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Simon. Forthcoming. “Babbage's Intelligence: Calculating Engines and the Factory System.” Critical Inquiry.Google Scholar
Stamp, Edward. 1981. “Why Can Accounting Not Become a Science Like Physics?Abacus 17(1): 1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamp, Philip. 1993. “In Search of Reality.” In Philosophical Perspectives on Accounting: Essays in Honour of Edward Stamp, edited by Michael, Mumford and Kenneth, Peasnell, 255314. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Sterling, Robert. 1979. Toward a Science of Accounting. Houston: Scholars Book Co.Google Scholar
Swetz, Frank. 1987. Capitalism and Arithmetic: The New Math of the Fifteenth Century. La Salle, 111.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Taylor, Frederick. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Thompson, Grahame, ed. 1986. Economic Calculation and Policy Formulation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Tinker, Tony. 1985. Paper Prophets: A Social Critique of Accounting. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Vance, L. L. 1950. Scientific Method for Auditing. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Van Maanen, John, and Brian, Pentland. 1994. “Cops and Auditors: The Rhetoric of Records.” In The Legalistic Organization, edited by Sitkin, S. and Bies, R., 5390. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Watts, Ross, and Jerold, Zimmerman. 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of an Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther, Roth and Claus, Wittich Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard. 1986. “The Transformation of Business Finance into Financial Economics: The Roles of Academic Expansion and Changes in US Capital Markets.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 11(2): 171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, M. Norton. 1988. “Mediating Machines.” Science in Context 2(1):77113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamey, Basil. 1949. “Scientific Bookkeeping and the Rise of Capitalism.” Economic History Review II 1(2,3):99113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamey, Basil. 1964. “Accounting and the Rise of Capitalism, Further Notes on a Theme by Sombart.” Journal of Accounting Research 2(2): 117–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

From the Science of Accounts to the Financial Accountability of Science
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

From the Science of Accounts to the Financial Accountability of Science
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

From the Science of Accounts to the Financial Accountability of Science
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *