Evidence, myths and informed debate in accounting history: A response to Arnold and McCartney

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2005.06.001Get rights and content

Section snippets

The deceptions of accounting history

In their recent paper in Critical Perspectives on Accounting (2003) Arnold and McCartney have uncovered a disturbing number of errors and examples of poor scholarship by accounting historians investigating 19th century British railway accounting. They suggest that these are the consequence of accounting historians uncritically relying upon the work of others without undertaking the more arduous task of returning to original materials (p. 249). The not inconsiderable failings that Arnold and

‘An Excessive Weight of Conclusions’

In the absence of confirmatory evidence beyond the history of 19th century railway accounting, Arnold and McCartney's denunciations of most, if not all, of accounting history grossly overstate the proved offences of accounting historians. The catalogue of errors and oversights identified by Arnold and McCartney in one part of accounting history, irrespective of the overwhelming number of errors found, does not constitute sufficient grounds to argue that there is “a reasonable working hypothesis

Conclusion

The disturbing extent of Arnold and McCartney's disclosures of poor scholarship in the history of 19th century railway accounting should awaken accounting historians to any complacency and renew their determination to pursue their craft with greater care. However, their accusation that the same predicament afflicts most other areas of accounting history is not supported by the evidence contained in their paper. Arnold and McCartney might be eventually proved correct, the possibility of which

References (0)

View full text