Wahyudi—MainstreamAccountingandItsParadigm
Mainstream Accounting and Its Paradigm: A Critical
Analysis (Imam Wahyudi): 99—112

MAINSTREAM ACCOUNTING AND
ITS PARADIGM:
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Imam Wahyudi
This paper discusses the methodology dominantly used in accounting
research, namely, mainstream accounting research methodology. This
methodology which relies on the methodology of natural sciences and is
called hypothetico-deductive approach assumes that human beings are
passive objects and has no power to create social realities. As a result,
accounting tends to be seen as an objective information separated from its
social environment.
This belief has created many disadvantages to the development of
accounting practices and accounting research itself. Accounting research
tends to be separated from accounting practices. Consequently, a lot of
research findings cannot be applied in accounting practice. Thus, accounting research and accounting theorizing may not produce a real answer to
the accounting problems.
Keywords: accounting research; hypothetico-deductive approach; mainstream accounting

Introduction
Accounting research as reflected in
the mainstream accounting journals has
been inclined to concentrate on the functionalist paradigm which is derived from
the natural sciences. This paradigm views
accounting phenomena as concrete realworld relations possessing regularities
and causal relationships that are ame-

nable to scientific explanation and prediction (Belkaoui 1987:61).
However, this paradigm has come to
be seen as increasingly unsatisfactory as a
basis for social research. It is only producing a scientific imitation by adopting a
policy of measuring, observing, experimenting, collecting data which can play an
important part but are not characteristics
of natural sciences (Wisdom 1987).
99

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September 1999 , Vol. 1, No. 2

Assumptions About the Nature
of Science
A paradigm is formed from two sets
of assumptions. The first set is assumptions about the nature of social sciences
consisting of ontological, human nature,
epistemological, and methodological assumptions. The second set is assumptions
about the nature of society or the social
world.

Ontological and Human Nature
Assumptions
As a consequence of its adoption to
the natural scientific research methodology, mainstream accounting research is
developed by assumptions similar to those
used in the natural science. Ontologically,
mainstream accounting research is dominated by a belief in physical realism which
is closely related to the distinction of the
subject and the object often made. The
object is presumed to be independent of
the subject and knowledge is achieved
when a subject correctly mirrors and “discovers” this objective reality (Chua 1986:
606).
Hence, the reality exists concretely
and independently of the social actors and
social practices (Tinker et al. 1982). Individuals are seen as passive persons who do
not construct the reality but they are simply analyzed as entities that are passively
described in objective ways. In other words,
a human is seen as a passive receptor of
discrete, atomic impressions from the outside (Steffy and Grimes 1986).
Within this view, economic reality is
treated as having an independent existence from accounting practices. The role
of accounting is merely to communicate
the reality so that it is treated as a passive
instrument of technical administration and
a neutral mean for revealing the granted
100

aspects of organizational functioning
(Solomons 1991; Hines 1989; Hopwood
1987). Moreover, accounting is value-free
of any particular goal and the value placed
upon that goal (Chua 1986).
In detail, the ontological assumptions of the functionalist paradigm can be
distinguished into three categories from
the extremely objective to the least objective. These are 1) reality as a concrete
structure, 2) reality as a concrete process,
and 3) reality as a contextual field of
information (Covaleski and Dirsmith 1990;
Tomkins and Groves 1983; Morgan and
Smircich 1980).
The first category which sees reality
as a concrete structure is the most extreme
of objective approaches to social science.
It views the social world as a network of
determinate relationships as the world of
physics and chemistry. By appropriate
observation and measurement scales, it is
assumed that one has, readily available,
stable, and usually very simple, functions
relating to isolated and small subsets of
the social world which can be used for
accurate predictions (Tomkins and Groves
1983).
Consistent with this assumption, human beings are seen as responding mechanism that are a product of the external
forces in the environment they are exposed (Morgan and Smircich 1980). Causal
relationship networks link all important
aspects of human behavior since they are
assumed to behave and respond to events
in predictable and determinate ways. The
majority of accounting research and theorizing can be placed within this view which
believes in a social world as concrete and
as real as the natural world (Belkaoui
1987; Hopper and Powell 1985; Tomkins
and Groves 1983).
The second category relaxes the assumption by saying that reality is a con-

Wahyudi—MainstreamAccountingandItsParadigm

crete process which means concrete in
nature but ever-changing in detailed form
(Morgan and Smircich 1983). Determinate causal relationships between constituent processes are difficult to find since
everything interacts with everything else.
However, there are some general and contingent relationships which are stable and
can be used for prediction to find out the
general patterns of change.
As mentioned by Morgan and
Smircich (1980), human beings are seen
as adaptive agents that exist in an interactive relationship with their world. Compared to the first category, there are shifts
from mechanical to organic analogies, and
from closed to open systems. It is reflected
in the accounting research in the form of
accounting dysfunction that can be seen in
open systems theory (see, for example:
Anshari 1977), contingency theory (see,
for example: Waterhouse and Tiessen
1978; Tiessen and Waterhouse 1983; Otley
1980), budgetary styles (see, for example:
Hopwood 1972; Otley 1978; Brownell
1981).
Third category that sees reality as a
contextual field of information is less objective within the functionalist paradigm
compared to the first and second categories. Human beings are assumed to be
continually processing information, learning and adapting. The adaptation process
may for long periods be harmonious and
predictable, but it may also from time to
time be unstable (Tomkins and Groves
1983:368). The main intention is to indicate the likelihood that disturbances in one
part of an organization will bring about
changes elsewhere.
Accounting research in this area, according to Tomkins and Groves (1983),
attempts to provide a large model of interconnections and relationships between
objects being examined and their environ-

ment. If the models are well developed,
they can be used to simulate on a probabilistic basis the behavior of internal and
external relationships (Morgan and
Smircich 1980). Cybernetic research approaches are usually used and are appropriate to such a worldly view.
Pluralism can also be classified under this category. These approaches view
organizations not as tools but as a network of inter-related, politically-motivated, conflicting groups (Dermer
1988:30). The aim is to eliminate conflict
by negotiating courses of actions which
permit each group maximum freedom consistent with the binding constraints laid
down by other groups (Hopper and Powell
1985:443). In accounting research, the pluralistic studies suggest that accounting rules
may come from sectional interests and are
mediated through political processes. The
work of Burchell et al. (1980) which shows
that accounting data often emerged from
political processes rather than preceding
them, is an example.
The main thesis of Burchell et al. was
to emphasize that accounting information
served to reduce perceived uncertainty
and to abate and objectify anxiety (Mason
1980 as quoted in Hopper and Powell
1985). The fact is that pluralism tends to
use research strategies such as case studies, field studies, and process-tracing studies to get more informed basis for model,
hypothesis-formation activities, testing of
validity and generating objective theories
(Kaplan 1986; Yin 1984; Abdel-Khalik
and Ajinkya 1983).
Thus, consistent with the functionalist paradigm, the pluralistic approaches
still believe that social protagonists share
a common interest in sustaining the whole
system and neutrality is pursued as a mediating role in conflict resolution (Tinker
et al. 1991). This means that pluralism
101

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September 1999 , Vol. 1, No. 2

presumes purposeful and self-interest behavior arising from a realist ontology where
socially created accounting is recognized
in terms of manipulative action to seek
external legitimating and to mask underlying realities (Hopper and Powell 1985).

Epistemological and
Methodological Assumptions
These three ontological assumptions
above have different epistemological implications. The epistemology of an extreme positivism that emphasizes an empirical analysis of concrete structural relationships, is a reflection of the first category of the ontological assumption, while
the second category gives way to an epistemology emphasizing the need to understand processes of organism change (Morgan and Smircich 1980; Tomkins and
Groves 1983; Covaleski and Dirsmith
1990). In fact, the second category is similar to the first category in terms of using
quantitative measures or standard qualitative classifications in searching for
generalized patterns of change.
The third category of the ontological
assumption is the causes of the epistemology concerned with the mapping of the
contexts and facilitating understanding of
the pattern of systemic relationships inherent in the ecological nature of those
contexts (Morgan and Smircich 1980). As
far as research in accounting is concerned,
the contextual approach might attempt to
draw a large model showing the interconnections between the environment and
parts of an organization being examined
(Tomkin and Groves 1983:368). This focus might provide a richer empirical basis
in reflecting factors that might be implicated in accounting change and the processes through which this takes place
(Hopwood 1983).
102

In principle, they share the same epistemological assumption, namely positivism, which is characterized by the tenets of
unity of science or scientific method and
empiricism (Stockman 1983). In accordance with this notion, there is a distinction and separation between observations
and theoretical constructs. Related to this
case, Chua (1986) states that a world of
observation is separated from the theory
and the former may be used to attest to the
scientific validity of the latter.
It is supported by Abdel-Khalik and
Ajinkya (1983) who state that there are
three principal determinants of the choice
of research methods within the scientific
methodology of research. First is the degree of phenomena that can or cannot be
simulated in artificial settings. Second is
the degree to which overt control or observation can bias the social relevant reality.
Finally is the availability of a prior theory.
For example, in the case where the phenomenon cannot be simulated in an artificial setting, the prior theory is available
and the phenomenon can be affected or
biased by explicit control, manipulation or
observation, a research needs to be conducted in the real phenomenon by using
research strategies such as quasi-experiment, field and case study, or unstructured
interview.
The positivism which is directed to
explain and predict social phenomenon by
searching for regularities and causal relationships between its constituent elements
has been expressed in two ways. Those
ways are verificationism and falsificationism (Chua 1986; Burrell and Morgan
1979; Christenson 1983; Richards 1983).
However, both accept a cumulative process in progress of knowledge by which
new insight are added to the existing stock
of knowledge and false hypothesis eliminated (Burrell and Morgan 1979).

Wahyudi—MainstreamAccountingandItsParadigm

The verificationists claims that the
only meaningful propositions are those
either of logic and mathematics or of empirical science. The scientific propositions
are meaningful if these can be verified by
observation in an adequate experimental
research program (Richards 1983). Under
the verificationism, empirical science is
viewed as a product or a body of systematized knowledge (Christenson 1983).
On the other hand, falsificationism
views the empirical science as a process of
human activity producing the knowledge
(Christenson 1983). This notion asserts
that to be scientific, a proposition must be
logically able to be falsified. Furthermore,
a proposition can be falsified if there is at
least one observational proposition by
which it is logically inconsistent. The
strength of a proposition is a measure of its
generality, for a more general proposition
is bound to offer more opportunities for
falsification than a more limited one that it
subsumes (Richards 1983:55). Hence, the
acceptance of a proposition in the body of
knowledge is always tentative.
There is no doubt that positive accounting theorists believe in the empirical
testability of scientific theories
(Christenson 1983; Sterling 1990; AbdelKhalik and Ajinkya 1979; Watts and
Zimmermann 1990). Unfortunately, according to Chua (1986), they draw on both
notions of verificationism and falsificationism without considering the criticism
of both criteria and their differences. It can
be seen that even among scientific theorists themselves, there are differences in
viewing objective reality (Casti 1989).
The epistemology of positivism has
brought to the consequence that the mainstream accounting tends to lay emphasis
on the nomothetic methodology which
relies upon systematic protocol and tech-

nique of research (Burrell and Morgan
1979). It is epitomized in the approach and
methods employed in the natural sciences
in the form of hypothetico-deductive approach of what constitutes a scientific explanation (Chua 1986; Gaffikin 1984).
To be considered scientific, an explanation should fulfill three components.
First, it must incorporate one or more
general principles or scientific laws that
will state truly invariable relations and
regularities (Richards 1983). The second
is the existence of prior condition in the
form of an observational statement. And
finally, a statement describes whatever is
being explained. The explanation shows
that the event to be explained follows from
the general principles, given that the prior
condition also holds (Chua 1986).
This model of scientific explanation
is widely accepted in accounting research.
Abdel-Khalik and Ajinkya (1979) describe
that to be scientific, accounting research
must be conducted within empiricism.
They identify eight steps of an effective
research. These include research problem
identification, development of the conceptual and theoretical structure, theoretical constructs and relationship operation
and statement of the hypothesis to be tested,
research design construction, sampling and
data gathering, hypothesis testing by observational analysis, evaluation of the results, and disclosure of limitations and
constraints.
The model has influenced the widespread use of true and laboratory experiments, survey methods by using large
samples and most observation methods.
All of these characterize most research in
accounting, such as contingency approach
in management accounting, the positive
theory of accounting, transaction cost
theory and the efficient capital market
research. Consistent with the hypothetico103

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September 1999 , Vol. 1, No. 2

deductive approach, the common assumption is a search for universal regularities
and causal relationships.
Consequently, soft methods of research such as case studies and field studies are relatively neglected because these
methods are not statistically valid and even
though these are appropriate for generating hypotheses, the methods cannot be
used to test them (Hagg and Hedlund 1979).
Functionalism usually represents prejudices against case studies by arguing that
these studies are inconclusive and equivocal in their results, sloppy and provide
little basis for scientific generalization,
and have a tendency to become massive
unreadable documents full of narrative
detail but lacking in theoretical direction
(Yin 1984).
However, within the functionalist
paradigm itself, a tendency to study accounting in its real environment has
emerged. It can be seen in the efforts to
introduce soft methods of research such as
case studies and field studies by many
researchers (see, for examples: AbdelKhalik and Ajinkya 1983; Hagg and
Hedlund 1979; Smith et al. 1988; Kaplan
1986). Accordingly, the discussion is usually focused on how to make generalization of the results of these methods possible.
Yin (1984:24-25) points out that case
studies should not be confused with the
burgeoning use of qualitative research.
He asserts that case studies can be based
entirely on quantitative evidence, besides
this need not always include direct and
detailed observations as a source of evidence. Furthermore, he identifies six
sources of evidence that can be used in the
case studies. These are documentation,
archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant-observation, and physical artifacts. It is believed that exercising
104

these six sources can help to overcome the
problems of reliability and validity of case
studies.
This is in accordance with Eisenhardt
(1989) who suggests that case studies enable the use of multiple data collection
methods and combination of quantitative
and qualitative data. To generalize the
result, cross-case pattern search using divergent techniques can be exercised in
data analysis (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 1984).
In general, the case studies can be used to
explain the causal links in real-life interventions that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies (Yin
1984:25).
Also, Abdel-Khalik and Ajinkya
(1983) state that the interpretive paradigm
can be exercised in combination with the
scientific approach or functionalist paradigm to study accounting in its real environment. Under the condition where a
phenomenon cannot be simulated in an
artificial setting, a prior theory is available, and the phenomenon can be affected
or biased by explicit control and manipulation, field and case studies are appropriate. However, it seems clear that qualitative data are used to support the quantitative data analysis.

The Nature of Society/Social
World Assumptions
The functionalist paradigm has drawn
upon the sociology of regulation. It concerns an understanding of society in terms
of its unity and cohesiveness. The focus of
attention is to understand society as an
entity. Accordingly, the sociology of regulation is concerned with status quo, social
order, consensus, social integration and
cohesion, solidarity, need satisfaction, and
actuality (Burrell and Morgan 1979).

Wahyudi—MainstreamAccountingandItsParadigm

Conforming with the functionalist
paradigm, mainstream accounting research
makes two important assumptions about
the nature of society or social world. The
first relates to the purposive human behavior. Human beings are assumed to possess
a single subordinate goal of utility maximization (Chua 1986; Hunt III and Hogler
1990; Watts and Zimmerman 1986; Sterling 1990; Hines 1989). Thus, people are
always seen as rational decision-makers
that are economically motivated and self
interested.
This can be seen, for instance, within
the positive agency theory that views a
firm as a set of contracts among factor of
production with each factor motivated by
its self-interest (Fama 1980). Implicitly,
individual utility maximization is viewed
as the sole motive for human action and
shareholders wealth maximization is used
as a basis to measure performance. The
performance is considered from a firm’s
survival perspective or profitability
(Neimark and Tinker 1986).
Organizations are coalitions of individual participants which are characterized by rational and cooperative behavior
among their members (Caplan 1975; Hopper et al. 1987). Even though only individuals have goals, collectivities may exhibit purposive behavior that implies
consensual goals accepted by all members
(Chua 1986). An example is the maximization of discounted future cash flows or
minimization of transaction costs.
The second assumption constitutes a
consequence of the first assumption. Implicit in the purposive individual and organization is the assumption about controllable social order which believes that conflict can always be managed through appropriate accounting systems (Chua 1986).
This notion is realized in many forms of
accounting tools, such as standard costing

systems and divisional performance criteria to avoid conflict (Hopwood 1974).
Within this view, the conflict is perceived as a dysfunction to the consensual
or organizational goals. The goals are seen
as additive - what is good for the part of the
business is also good for the whole. Dysfunction occurs when an individual’s or
group’s interests pass over the organizational goals. It is the task of the accounting
researcher to seek specific procedures to
correct the dysfunction (Hopwood 1974;
Tiessen and Waterhouse 1983; Daft and
Macintosh 1978). Most accounting research can be classified within this notion
(see, for example: Hopwood 1972; Otley
1978; Brownell 1982; Hirst 1983; Penno
1990).

Mainstream Accounting—
Consequences and Limitations
Several consequences are identified
from the dominant assumptions of the
mainstream accounting research. First, the
belief that reality exists independently of
financial accounting and accounting research has brought to the consequence that
accounting researchers takes as given and
natural the sociopolitical environment.
Thus, the sociopolitical process which
forms current institutional framework of
governments, markets, prices, and business organizations are created independently from accounting and accountants
(Hines 1989; Chua 1986; Solomons 1991).
This is reflected in the means-end
dichotomy assumptions where the task of
accountants is only to provide means for
the users with relevant financial information to achieve their goals. The goals of the
users are seen as outside the province of
accountant. Similarly, concerns about the
system of property rights, economic exchange, and the distribution of wealth and
105

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September 1999 , Vol. 1, No. 2

wealth -creating opportunities are outside
the boundary of the accounting field. As
stated by Solomons (1991), the job of the
accountants is merely to portray certain
aspects of society and not to change it
since they have no special expertise in that
direction.
Scientific accounting as identified
with the double-entry system, played an
important part in facilitating the rationalistic investment for the purpose of obtaining profits as an essential part of the element in the capitalistic spirit (Sombart as
quoted by Yamey 1964). Hence, the concept of capital could only be formulated
under the principle of economic rationality introduced by double-entry bookkeeping in its profit concept. This concept
made possible the separation of business
firm from its owners.
However, Yamey (1964) disagrees
and argues that discussion on these matters is unlikely to be fruitful, and these
matters, moreover, distract attention from
the simple question provoked by the
(Sombart’s) thesis, namely, the contribution of the double-entry accounting to the
solution of problems in business organization and administration. Accordingly,
Yamey views accounting as a neutral
means that are independent of business
practices and their goals.
Accounting is a technology that is not
ideologically sterile since it emanates from
the social sphere. The accounting framework is a social construction and the technology is framed by ideology. The interpretation of events and even the specification of what constitutes events are functions of the socio-political point of view
(Dillard 1991). Thus, by not questioning
the extant goals, accounting helps to legitimize extant relations of exchange, production and forms of suppression (Chua
1986; Tinker et al. 1982). Accountants do
106

not simply report facts but he/she has
chosen to say something about something
(what the accounting report is about) to
whom the accounting report is prepared
for (Francis 1990).
Second, assumptions of human purpose, rationality, and consensus which are
reflected in the consensual goals of utilitymaximization bias to the goals of the capital providers (Chua 1986). This means that
accounting practices are geared to provide
and sustain a shareholder’s view of organizations, in this case, profit maximization
(Morgan 1988). It is believed that
everyone’s interests are ultimately served
by the prospering of owners who are treated
as synonymous (Hopper et al. 1987). The
reason is that workers desire profit maximization because without profit, they
could not be paid.
This assumption tends to neglect the
complexity of social relations among organizational participants and the social
environment outside the organization. For
example, accountants and auditors sometimes suggest that they act in public interest. However, it is generally accepted that
managerial and external financial reports
are intended to protect the rights of investors and creditors. In a more sarcastic
statement, Neimark and Tinker (1986) argue that in a capitalist society, it makes no
sense at all to say that the goal of the firm
is to maximize the janitor’s salary.
The single-utility maximization is
nothing more than a myth, having no premises and no arguments, except that it is
accepted without any questions (Chambers 1980). Because the focus of the functionalist paradigm is the entity or the organization, performance is considered
from the organizational perspective. As a
result, performance is viewed as non-problematic despite the fact that socio-structure determines the capacity of partici-

Wahyudi—MainstreamAccountingandItsParadigm

pant groups to impose constraints singled
out and identified as the goals of the enterprise (Neimark and Tinker 1986).
In that sense, accounting information
is not a product of rational decision making. Rather, it is decisions that need to be
rationalized and legitimated for the interest of certain society groups, that is,
capital providers (Hines 1989). The profitability and the survival of organizations
are not inherently rational, but it must be
rationalized to get social legitimacy. Unfortunately, mainstream accounting research has largely neglected this social
conflict which exists within the organizational life.
Third, the set of dominant beliefs of
scientific research in accounting tends to
ignore controversies within the philosophy of social science which have questioned realism and the empirical testability of theories. The scientific method of
accounting research as represented by
Abdel-Khalik and Ajinkya (1979) constructs a theory based on a verification
process from empirical observation. Positive accounting theorists claim that this is
the only legitimate accounting research
program, even though, in their recent article, Watts and Zimmermann (1990) realize that there are other approaches to accounting research.
Philosophical debates about this issue have been arising among scientific
philosophers. Falsificationist, that was popularized by Karl Popper, denies that the
truth of scientific claims could be verified.
Instead, the falsificationist believes that a
proposition can only be falsified
(Christenson 1983). According to Mouck
(1990), the idea relies on inductive inference which can never be complete in and
of itself because it has to be based on
limited experience and future experience
may contradict it. Thus, the only possible
way is to prove the falsify of theories.

However, it has been criticized by
Lakatos (1970) on the basis that the
falsificationist methodology of science
does not fit the actual history of scientific
practice. First, tests, under falsificationist
methodology must be made in a two-cornered fight between theory and experiment, whereas according to the history of
science, tests are at least conducted in a
three-cornered fight between rival theories and experiment. Second, under the
falsificationist methodology, the only interesting outcome of such confrontation is
falsification of theory, whereas in actual
practice, the most interesting result is prima
facies in confirmation rather than falsification.
Kuhn (1970), on the other hand, argues that the progress of science is through
revolutions characterized by competing
paradigms. Knowledge is not the result of
evolutionary process leading to the accumulation of knowledge. The basic idea is
that a theory used for a considerable period
of time is rejected by another theory which
is inconsistent and completely different
with its predecessor. This new theory depicts the phenomena in the natural world
more closely than the theory which it supersedes. The history of science follows
the process of pre-science, normal science, crisis, revolution, and new normal
science.
Unlike Popper, Lakatos, and Kuhn,
Feyerabend (1975) claims there is only
one principle that can be defended in all
circumstances and all stages of human
development. That is the principle of anything goes. Lakatos’ standards contain no
rules in order to tell scientists what they
should do. In other words, nothing is ruled
out. Based on this reason, his method is
classified as irrationalism (Mouck 1990;
Casti 1989).
107

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September 1999 , Vol. 1, No. 2

Except Popper who believes in the
notion of realism, Lakatos, Kuhn, and
Feyerabend view reality as what the community says it is or relativism, even though
their arguments are different (Casti 1989).
Unfortunately, mainstream accounting
thought does not give enough attention to
these philosophical debates. Instead, accounting researchers work within some
vogue notion of objective reality or realism and of confronting theory with data
(Chua 1986).
Another problem with the mainstream
accounting thought is the growing numbers of accounting researchers who question the relevance of the philosophy of the
natural science as a basis for accounting
research methodology. Accounting which
has more affinity to social science is different from the natural science in its basic
goals. Social phenomena and social events
are constituted by meanings and cultural
conventions and vary accordingly (Whitley
1988).

Conclusion and Implication
Conclusion
Mainstream accounting that is developed based on the belief of physical realism has been changing gradually from
extreme realism to contextual field of reality. This change has shifted the emphasis
of research from an empirical analysis of
concrete structural relationship to a large
model of interconnections between environments and the organization being
studied. However, the three approaches
still share the same ontology of physical
realism which believes that the reality
exists independently of accounting and
accounting research. Consequently, accountant takes as given and natural the
sociopolitical processes which form insti108

tutional frameworks where accounting is
seen as an ideologically sterile technology.
This belief gives way to the adoption
of positivism which states that accounting
research must separate observation and
theoretical constructs as has been done in
natural sciences. Accordingly, a research
methodology relies upon hypothetico-deductive approach dominates scientific research in accounting, nowadays. Unfortunately, the dominant belief of the approach
tends to ignore the controversies within
the philosophy of social sciences about
realism and empirical testability of theories.
An assumption that people posses a
single goal of utility-maximization tends
to neglect the complexity of social relations among people within an organization and social environment outside the
organization. It is believed that the consensual goal of utility-maximization biases to the goals of investors and stockholders. Implicit to this assumption is the
belief that conflict can always be managed
through appropriate accounting systems.
This condition will give birth to the fact
that the objectivity of accounting information is a controversial issue and needs to be
reviewed.

Implication
The differences of social science from
the natural science are due to the complexity of social facts. These facts, according
to Cohen (1953) are connected to their less
repeatable characters, their less direct
observability, their greater variability and
lesser uniformity, and their greater difficulty of isolating one factor at a time.
These phases are so dependent of one
another that we shall not treat them separately.

Wahyudi—MainstreamAccountingandItsParadigm

Accounting as a social science has
different characteristics with the natural
sciences. Accordingly, efforts to adopt
and imitate the methodology of natural
sciences by using systematic protocol and
technique of research in accounting re-

search and accounting theorizing will not
produce any answer to the accounting problems. Thus accounting researchers need to
develop research methodologies that fit to
the characteristics of accounting phenomena as social phenomena.

References
Abdel-khalik, A. R., and B. P. Ajinkya. 1979. Empirical Research in Acounting—A
Methodological Viewpoint. Sarasota Florida: American Accounting Association.
______________ 1983. An evaluation of the everyday accountant and researching his
reality. Accounting Organizations and Society (8/4): 375-384.
Ansari, S. L. 1977. An integrated approach to control system design. Accounting
Organizations and Society (2/2): 101-112.
Belkaoui, A. 1987. Inquiry and Accounting-Alternative Methods and Presearch Perspectives. Westport Connecticut: Greenwood Press Inc.
Brownell, P. 1981. Participation in budgeting, locus of control and organizational
effectiveness. The Accounting Review (October): 844-860.
______________. 1982. The role of accounting data in performance evaluation, budgetary participation, and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Accounting Research
20/1 ( Spring): 13-27.
Burchell, S. et al. 1980. The role of accounting in organizationa and society. Accounting
Organizations and Society (5/1): 5-27.
Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd..
Caplan, E. H. 1975. Behavioral assumptions of management accounting. in Alfred
Rappaport (ed). Information for Decision Making—Quantitative and Behavioral
Dimensions. 2 ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall Inc.: 352-366.
Casti, J. L. 1989. Paradigms Lost-Images of Man in the Mirror of Science. New York:
William Morrow and Company Inc.
Chambers, R. J. 1980. The myths and the science of accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society (5/1): 167-180.
Christenson, C. 1983. The methodology of positive accounting. The Accounting Review
(January): 1-22.
Chua, W. F. 1986. Radical development in accounting thought. The Accounting Review
(October): 601-632.

109

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September 1999 , Vol. 1, No. 2

Cohen, M. R. 1953. Reason in social science. in Herbert Feigl and May Brodbeck
(editors). Readings in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts Inc.
Covaleski, M. A., and M. W. Dirsmith. 1990. Dialectic tension, double reflexivity and the
everyday accounting researcher: On using qualitative Methods. Accounting Organizations and Society (15/6): 543-573.
Daft, R. L., and N. B. Macintosh. 1978. A new approach to design and use of management
accounting. California Management Review XXI/1 (Fall): 82-92.
Dermer, J. 1988. Control and organizational order. Accounting Organizations and Society
(13/1): 25-36.
Dillard, J. F. 1991. Accounting as a critical social science. Accounting Auditing &
Accountability Journal (4/1): 8-28.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review (14/4): 532-550.
Fama, E. F. 1980. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political
Economy 88/2 (April): 289-307.
Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against Method. London: Verso Editions.
Francis, J. R. 1990. After virtue? accounting as a moral and discursive practice. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal (3/3): 5-17.
Gaffikin, M. J. R. 1984. Scientific theory construction in accounting. in M.J.R. Gaffikin
(ed). Contemporary Accounting Thought. Sydney: Prentice Hall of Australia Pty.
Ltd. : 7-27.
Hagg, I., and G. Hedlund. 1979. Case studies. in Accounting Research ( Accounting
Organizations and Society 4/1-2): 135-143.
Hines, R. D. 1989. The sociopolitical paradigm in financial accounting research. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal (2/2): 53-76.
Hirst, M. 1983. Reliance on accounting measures, task uncertainty, and dysfunctional
behavior: Some extensions. Journal of Accounting Research 21/2 (Autumn): 596604.
Hopper, T., and A. Powell. 1985. Making sense of research into the organizational and
social aspects of management accounting: A review of its underlying assumptions.
Journal of Management Studies (September): 429-465.
Hopper, T. et al. 1987. Accounting for accounting: Towards the development of a
dialectical view. Accounting Organizations and Society (12/5): 437-456.
Hopwood, A. G. 1983. On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates.
Accounting Organizations and Society (8/2-3): 287-305.

110

Wahyudi—MainstreamAccountingandItsParadigm

Hopwood, A. G. 1972. An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance
evaluation. Supplement to Journal of Accounting Research (10): 156-182.
_____________. 1974. Accounting and Human Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs (New
Yersey): Prentice Hall Inc.
_____________. 1987. The archaeology of accounting systems. Accounting Organizations and Society (12/3): 207-234.
Hunt III, H. G., and R. L. Hogler. 1990. Agency theory as ideology: A comparative
analysis based on critical legal theory and radical accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society (15/5): 437-455.
Kaplan, R. S. 1986. The role for empirical research in management accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society (11/4-5): 429-452.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press Ltd.
Imre. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. in
Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (editors). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press: 91-196.
Morgan, G. 1988. Accounting as reality construction: Towards a new epistemology for
accounting practice. Accounting Organizations and Society (13/5): 477-485.
Morgan, G., and L. Smircich. 1980. The case for qualitative research. Academy of
Management Review (5/4): 491-500.
Mouck, T. 1990. Positive accounting theory as a lakatosian research programme.
Accounting Business Research (20/79): 231-239.
Neimark, M., and T. Tinker. 1986. The social construction of management control
systems. Accounting Organizations and Society (11/4-5): 369-395.
Otley, D. T. 1978. Budget use and managerial performance. Journal of Accounting
Research 16/1 (Spring): 122-149.
Penno, M. 1990. Accounting systems, participation in budgeting, and performance
evaluation. The Accounting Review (April): 303-314.
Richards, S. 1883. Philosophy and Sociology of Science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Publisher Ltd.
Smith, C. et al. 1988. Case study research in accounting: Methodological breakthrough or
ideological weapon.? Advances in Public Interest Accounting (2): 95-120.
Solomons, D. 1991. Accounting and social change: A neutralist view. Accounting
Organizations and Society (16/3): 287-295.
Steffy, B. D., and A. J. Grimes. 1986. A critical theory of organization science. Academy
of Management Review (11/2): 322-336.
Sterling, R. R. 1990. Positive accounting: An assessment. ABACUS (26/2): 97-135.
111

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September 1999 , Vol. 1, No. 2

Stockman, N. 1983. Antipositivist Theories of the Sciences. Dordrecht: D Reidel
Publishing Company.
Tiessen, P., and J. H. Waterhouse. 1983. Towards a descriptive theory of management
accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society (8/2-3): 251-267.
Tinker, A. M. et al. 1982. The normative origins of positive theories: Ideology and
accounting thought. Accounting Organizations and Society (7/2):167-200.
Tinker, A. M. et al. 1991. Falling dawn the hole in the middle of the road: Political
quietism in corporate social reporting. Accounting Auditing and Accountability
Journal (4/2): 28-54.
Tomkins, C., and R. Groves. 1983. The everyday accountant and researching his reality.
Accounting Organizations and Society (8/4): 361-374.
Waterhouse, J. H., and P. Tiessen. 1978. A contingency framework for management
accounting systems research. Accounting Organizations and Society (3/1): 65-76.
Watts, R. L., and J. L. Zimmerman. 1990. Positive accounting theory: A ten year
perspective. The Accounting Review (January): 131-156.
_________________ 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice
Hall Inc.
Whitley, R. D. 1988. The possibility and utility of positive accounting theory. Accounting
Organizations and Society (13/6): 631-645.
Wisdom, J. O. 1987. Philosophy of the Social Science I: A Methascientific Introduction. Aldershot: Growing Publishing Company Ltd.
Yamey, B. S. 1964. Accounting and the rise of capitalism: Further notes on a theme by
Sombart. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 117-136.
Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research design and methods. Applied Social Research
Methods Series 5. Beverly Hill: Sage Publications.

112

Wahyudi—MainstreamAccountingandItsParadigm

DAFTAR RIWAYAT HIDUP:
Nama:
Drs. Imam Wahyudi, Ak., M.Com.(Honours)
Alamat: Harapan Baru Regency B3/38 Bekasi Barat
Telp.:
525-2533 (Kantor), 480-1578 (Rumah), 0816-719624 (Handphone)
Pendidikan:
Sarjana Ekonomi Jurusan Akuntansi UGM 1984 (lulus)
Master of Commerce in Accounting (Honours) The University of
Wollongong Australia 1991 (lulus)
Pekerjaan:
Ketua Program Magister Manajemen STIE Perbanas Jakarta
Konsultan manajemen dan akuntansi

113