The debate between postmodernism and historiography: An accounting historian’s manifesto

Abstract

Garry Carnegie recently concluded that ‘the key development in accounting historiography between 1983 and 2012 has been the advent of new accounting history’. We agree and believe that the debate in accounting reflects a greater debate between postmodern and traditional historians – one which questions both the nature of historiography and the historian’s role in society. As a participant in this debate, Michael Gaffikin criticized traditionalists (in accounting) for failing to assess developments in the general history literature. This article responds to Gaffikin’s critique. We initially describe the key issues in the debate between postmodern and traditional historians. We review the current general history literature and then recount how the debate played out in three distinct episodes in accounting historiography in which the authors directly participated. We conclude by assessing the current state of accounting historiography.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.