Accounting History ResearchTraditional and New Accounting History Perspectives

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate in accounting history around the ways in which historical material should be gathered, interpreted, analysed and written. Lying at the heart of this debate is the perennial concern with 'objective/interpretive' modes of investigation. The mainstream orthodoxy of accounting history embraces the 'objective' view of history, whereas the alternative approach promotes interpretive and critical stances. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the achievements of NAH. This is attempted here by contrasting NAH with TAH along four dimensions: what counts as accounting; origins versus genealogies; roles of accounting; and sources of historical material. Under each of these dimensions, we show the differences between the two approaches and comment on the extent to which NAH may contribute to the study of accounting history. We argue that, although TAH and NAH approaches exhibit fundamental differences, both contribute significantly to the field, and indeed to the sharpening of each other's research agenda.