Preview

Вопросы экономики

Расширенный поиск
Доступ открыт Открытый доступ  Доступ закрыт Только для подписчиков

Демаркация границ экономической дисциплины: содержательный подход (случай «бухгалтерского» учета)

https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-2-95-121

Полный текст:

Аннотация

Работа посвящена моделированию предметного поля академической дисциплины на примере бухгалтерского учета. Показано, что в исследованиях учета популярными становятся междисциплинарный подход, интерпретативные и критические исследования, конструктивистская парадигма. При этом мультипарадигмальность учетной науки определяется главным образом переходом от традиционных финансовой и организационной парадигм к представлению учета как социально-экономического института.

Об авторе

О. Н. Волкова
Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»
Россия
к.  ф.-м.  н., проф. СанктПетербургской школы экономики и менеджмента Национального исследовательского университета «Высшая школа экономики» (Санкт-Петербург)


Список литературы

1. Ананьин О. И. (2005). Структура экономико-теоретического знания. Методологический анализ. М.: Наука

2. Ананьин О. (2007). Экономика: наука и/или искусство // Вопросы экономики. № 11. С. 4-24

3. Болдырев И. А. (2011). Экономическая методология сегодня: краткий обзор основных направлений // Журнал Новой экономической ассоциации. № 9. С. 47-71

4. Волкова О. Н. (2015). Властоментальность и учетные практики // Политическая концептология: журнал метадисциплинарных исследований. № 1. С. 18-26

5. Волкова О. Н. (2016). Влияют ли революции в визуальной культуре на учетные практики // Журнал Новой экономической ассоциации. № 1. С. 54-82

6. Волкова О.Н., Логинова Я.В. (2015). Предметное поле учета: о чем пишут в российских и англоязычных научных журналах // Вестник УрФУ. Серия: Экономика и управление. Т. 4. № 2. С. 131-148

7. Дмитриев А. Н., Савельева И. М. (отв. ред.). (2015). Науки о человеке: история дисциплин. М.: Издат. дом Высшей школы экономики

8. Ефимов В. М. (2007). Предмет и метод интерпретативной институциональной экономики // Вопросы экономики. № 8. С. 49-67

9. Зуга Е. И. (2010). Роль научных парадигм в развитии бухгалтерского учета // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 5: Экономика. № 1. С. 143-146

10. Кирдина С. Г. (2013). К переосмыслению принципа методологического индивидуализма. М.: Институт экономики РАН

11. Кирчик О. И. (2011). Дисциплинарные границы как границы символические: случай аграрной экономики // Символическая власть: социальные науки и политика. Гл. 9. М.: Университетская книга. С. 247-275

12. Кошовец О. (2007). Особенности экспертного знания в России (на примере становления российского Форсайта) // Вопросы экономики. № 11. С. 25-43

13. Кун Т. (1977). Структура научных революций. М.: Прогресс

14. Лакатос И. (1995). Фальсификация и методология научно-исследовательских программ. М.: Медиум

15. Серио П. (1993). В поисках четвертой парадигмы // Философия языка: в границах и вне границ / Под ред. Ю. С. Степанова. Харьков: Око. С. 37-52

16. Соколов Я. В. (1985). История развития бухгалтерского учета. М.: Финансы и статистика

17. Тамбовцев В. Л. (2007). Предметное поле новой институциональной экономической теории // Terra Economicus. Т. 5. № 3. С. 9-17

18. Фуко М. (1996). Воля к истине: по ту сторону знания, власти и сексуальности. Работы разных лет. М.: Касталь

19. Фуко М. (1999). Надзирать и наказывать. М.: Ad Marginem

20. Шмелев И. П. (1895). Новая четверная бухгалтерия. М.: А. А. Левенсон

21. Юдин Г. (2010). «Экономическое» и «социальное»: автономия сфер и дисциплинарные границы // Вопросы экономики. № 8. С. 54-71

22. Abbott A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

23. Akisik O. (2013). Accounting regulation, financial development, and economic growth. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 33-67.

24. Avery H. G. (1953). Accounting as a language. The Accounting Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 83-87.

25. Badua F. A., Previts G. J., Vasarhelyi M. A. (2011). Tracing the development of accounting thought by analyzing content, communication, and quality of accounting research over time. The Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 31-56.

26. Baldvinsdottir G., Hagberg A., Johansson I., Jonall K., Marton J. (2011). Accounting research and trust: A literature review. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 382-424.

27. Baxter J., Chua W. F. (2003). Alternative management accounting research - whence and whither. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28, pp. 97-126.

28. Beattie V., Davie E. (2006). Theoretical studies of the historical development of the accounting discipline: A review and evidence. Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-25.

29. Belkaoui A. (1980). The interprofessional linguistic communication of accounting concepts: An experiment in sociolinguistics. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 362-374.

30. Bernstein L. (1965). Whither accounting research? Journal of Accountancy, No. 120, pp. 33-38.

31. Blevis E., Stolterman E. (2009). Transcending disciplinary boundaries in interaction design. Interactions, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 48-51.

32. Braun T., Schubert A. (2003). A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980-1999. Scientometrics, Vol. 58, pp. 183-189.

33. Brown R., Jones M. (2015). Mapping and exploring the topography of contemporary financial accounting research. The British Accounting Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 237-261.

34. Burrel G., Morgan G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.

35. Carnegie G.D., West B.P. (2005). Making accounting accountable in the public sector. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 905-928.

36. Carroll W.K. (2013). Discipline, field, nexus: Re-visioning sociology. Canadian Review of Sociology, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 1-26.

37. Coyne J. G., Summers S. L., Williams B., Wood D. A. (2010). Accounting program research rankings by topical area and methodology. Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 631-654.

38. Dillard J. F. (1991). Accounting as a critical social science. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 8-28.

39. Dillard J., Vinnari E. (2017). A case study of critique: Critical perspectives on critical accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 43, pp. 88-109.

40. Dolfsma W. (2006). Accounting as applied ethics: Teaching a discipline. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 209-215.

41. Dumay J., Bernardi C., Guthrie J., Demartini P. (2016). Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Accounting Forum, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 166-185.

42. Espeland W., Stevens M. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, pp. 313-343.

43. Fuller S. (2002). Disciplinary boundaries: A conceptual map of the field. In: Social Epistemology, Ch. 8. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

44. Gieryn T.F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

45. Goldberg L. (1994). Whither accounting research? A personal view. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 2-17.

46. Gomes D., Carnegie G., Napier C., Parker L., West B. (2011). Does accounting history matter? Accounting History, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 389-402.

47. Green M. (2013). What counts as knowledge? Parameters of validity for the meaning and representation of a contingency theory in the organisation and management accounting literature. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. De Montfort University.

48. Guffey D. M. (2016). An analysis of the research contributions of advances in accounting behavioral research: 1998-2012. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Vol. 19, pp. 1-32.

49. Guthrie J., Parker L. D. (2016). Whither the accounting profession, accountants and accounting researchers? Commentary and projections. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 2-10.

50. Hann C., Hart K. (2011). Economic anthropology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

51. Heck J., Jensen B. (2007). An analysis of the evolution of research contributions by The Accounting Review, 1926-2005. Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 109-142.

52. Hopwood A. G. (2007). Whither Accounting Research? The Accounting Review, Vol. 82, No. 5, pp. 1365-1374.

53. Hopwood A. G., Miller P. (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

54. Horvat R., Korošec B. (2015). The role of accounting in a society: Only a techn(olog)ical solution for the problem of economic measurement or also a tool of social ideology? Our Economy (Nase Gospodarstvo), Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 32-40.

55. Huutoniemi K. (2016). Interdisciplinarity as academic accountability: Prospects for quality control across disciplinary boundaries. Social Epistemology, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 163-185.

56. Ijiri Y. (1986). A framework for triple-entry bookkeeping. Accounting Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 745-759.

57. Jack L. (2017). Accounting and social theory. An introduction. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

58. Jones T. C., Dugdale D. (2001). The concept of an accounting regime. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 35 - 63.

59. Jones S., Wells M. (2015). Accounting research: Where now? Abacus, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 572-586.

60. Kakkuri-Knuuttila M.-L., Lukka K., Kuorikoski J. (2008). Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 267-291.

61. Keynes J. N. (1999). The scope and method of political economy. Kitchener: Batoche Book.

62. Khlif H. (2016). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in accounting research: A review. Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.545-573.

63. Knorr-Cetina K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

64. Lapsley I. (1999). Accounting and the new public management: Instruments of substantive efficiency or a rationalising modernity? Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15, No. 3-4, pp. 201-207.

65. Lattuca L.R. (2002). Learning interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural perspectives on academic work. Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No. 6, pp. 711-739.

66. Laughlin R. (1995). Methodological themes: Empirical research in accounting: Alternative approaches and a case for “Middle-Range” thinking. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 63-87.

67. Lenoir T. (1997). Instituting science: The cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

68. Leuz C., Laux C. (2009). The crisis of fair-value accounting: Making sense of the recent debate. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34, No. 6-7, pp. 826-834.

69. Llewellyn S., Milne M. J. (2007). Accounting as codified discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 805-824.

70. Locke J., Lowe A. (2008). Evidence and implications of multiple paradigms in accounting knowledge production. European Accounting Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 161-191.

71. Lukka K. (2010). The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research. Management Accounting Research, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 110-115.

72. Lukka K., Modell S. (2010). Validation in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 462-477.

73. Luan C., Porter A. L. (2017). Insight into the disciplinary structure of nanoscience & nanotechnology. Journal of Data and Information Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 70-88.

74. Major M. J. (2017). Positivism and ‘alternative’ accounting research. Revista Contabilidade & Financas, Vol. 28, No. 74, pp. 173-178.

75. Mattessich R. (2008). Two hundred years of accounting research. An international survey of personalities, ideas and publications. London and New York: Routledge.

76. Merchant K. (2010). Paradigms in accounting research: A view from North America. Management Accounting Research, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 116-120.

77. Miller P. (1994). Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice: An Introduction. In: A. G. Hopwood, P. Miller (eds.). Accounting as a social and institutional practice. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.

78. Miller P.B.W., Bahnson P.R. (2010). Continuing the normative dialog: Illuminating the asset/liability theory. Accounting Horizons, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 419-440.

79. Modell S. (2015). Making institutional accounting research critical: Dead end or new beginning? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 773 - 808.

80. Mouritsen J. (2014). The role of accounting in new public management. In: A. Bourmistrov, O. Olson (eds.). Accounting, management control and institutional development. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, рр. 97-108.

81. Mouritsen J., Kreiner K. (2016). Accounting, decisions and promises. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 21-31.

82. Myers N., Snow N., Summers S. L., Wood D. A. (2016). Accounting Institution Citation-Based Research Rankings by Topical Area and Methodology. Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 33-62.

83. Nicolescu B. (2014). Methodology of Transdisciplinarity. World Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research, Vol. 70, No. 3-4, pp. 186-199.

84. Nørreklit H., Raffnsøe-Møller M., Mitchell F. (2016). A pragmatic constructivist approach to accounting practice and research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 266-277.

85. Oler D. K., Oler M. J., Skousen C. J. (2010). Characterizing accounting research. Accounting Horizons, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 635-670.

86. Palea V. (2017). Whither accounting research? A European view. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 42, pp. 59-73.

87. Partridge C. (1996). Business objects: Re-engineering for re-use. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

88. Porter T. M. (1992). Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 633-651.

89. Power M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

90. Previts G., Schuetze W. P., Wolnizer P. (2010). A global history of accounting, financial reporting and public policy: Europe (Studies in the development of accounting thought, Vol. 14A). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

91. Price D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. Yale: Yale University Press.

92. Reiter S. A. (1998). Economic imperialism and the crisis in financial accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 143-171.

93. Richardson A. J. (2012). Paradigms, theory and management accounting practice: A comment on Parker (forthcoming) “Qualitative management accounting research: Assessing deliverables and relevance”. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 83-88.

94. Rikhardsson P. M., Bennett M., Bouma J. J., Schaltegger S. (eds.). (2005). Implementing environmental management accounting: Status and challenges. Heidelberg etc.: Springer.

95. Ritzer G. (1975). Sociology: A multiple paradigm science. American Sociologist, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 156-167.

96. Rutherford B. A. (2010). The social scientific turn in UK financial accounting research: a philosophical and sociological analysis. Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 149-171.

97. Satava D., Caldwell C., Richards L. (2006). Ethics and auditing culture: Rethinking the foundation of accounting and auditing. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 271-284.

98. Segerstråle U. C. O. (ed.). (2000). Beyond the science wars: The missing discourse about science and society. New York: SUNY Press.

99. Serenko A., Bontis N. (2013). The intellectual core and impact of the knowledge management academic discipline. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 137-155.

100. Shore C., Wright S. (2015). Audit culture revisited: Rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of society. Current Anthropology, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 421-444.

101. Shulman L.S. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. Educational Researcher, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 5-23.

102. Strathern M. (ed.). (2000). Audit cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London and New York: Routledge.

103. Sugimoto C. R., Weingart S. (2015). The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity. Journal of Documentation, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 775-794.

104. Valenza R. (2009). Literature, language, and the rise of the intellectual disciplines in Britain, 1680-1820. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.

105. Vollmer H. (2003). Bookkeeping, accounting, calculative practice: The sociological suspense of calculation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 353-381.

106. Vollmer H. (2009). Management accounting as normal social science. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 141-150.

107. Walker S. P. (2016). Revisiting the roles of accounting in society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 41-50.

108. Warren J. D. Jr., Moffitt K. C., Byrnes P. (2015). How big data will change accounting. Accounting Horizons, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 397-407.

109. Watts R. L., Zimmerman J. L. (1978). Positive accounting theory for the determination of accounting. Accounting Review, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 112-134.

110. Whitley R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

111. Woods M., Linsley P., Maffei M. (2017). Accounting and risk special issue: Editorial. British Accounting Review, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 1-3.


Для цитирования:


Волкова О.Н. Демаркация границ экономической дисциплины: содержательный подход (случай «бухгалтерского» учета) . Вопросы экономики. 2018;(2):95-121. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-2-95-121

For citation:


Volkova O.N. Defining the boundaries of an economic discipline: A content-related approach (The case of accounting). Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2018;(2):95-121. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-2-95-121

Просмотров: 56


ISSN 0042-8736 (Print)