Beyond numbers: A critical and cultural approach to accounting, finance, and actuarial science

1 INTRODUCTION

The dominant literature in Accounting, Finance, and Actuarial Science has traditionally framed these disciplines as primarily technical domains characterised by mathematical modelling and supposedly objective practices that merely reflect economic reality (Ball & Brown, 1968; Watts & Zimmerman, 1978). However, as Hopwood (1976) argued in the inaugural editorial of Accounting, Organizations and Society, this perspective significantly oversimplifies the inherent complexity of these fields. According to Hopwood, "the economic distinctions drawn by accountants and the methods which they use are themselves creations of the human intellect and reflect social as well as economic evaluations" (p.1). This publication marked the emergence of a new research agenda in accounting, challenging the presumed technical neutrality of the field and exploring its social, political, and cultural dimensions (Sauerbronn et al., 2023).

Building on this foundation, a robust research tradition has since demonstrated that the appearance of technical neutrality conceals a far more intricate reality. Tinker et al. (1978) exposed the normative underpinnings of theories purportedly “positive”, while subsequent studies have reinforced this critical perspective. These works established that accounting extends beyond its technical dimension, functioning as a socially constructed instrument that simultaneously reflects and shapes the reality it claims to merely describe (Burchell et al., 1980; Tinker, 1980; Hopwood, 1983). Hines (1988) further advanced this perspective by arguing that accounting practices do not merely reflect or shape reality but actively construct the very phenomena they report. This view underscores the ontological and epistemological limitations of dominant approaches, which assume an objective and independent reality to be merely captured by accounting.

Recognising these epistemological complexities was pivotal to institutionalising the Emerging Themes in Accounting, Finance, and Actuarial Sciences section (hereafter Emerging Themes) in the Revista de Contabilidade e Finanças (RC&F). This section emerged as a response to the predominance of the theoretical perspectives focused on problem-solving and examining relationships between objectively measurable variables. Deeply influenced by the critical tradition, Emerging Themes was established to address the challenges of such dominant paradigms. Published under the auspices of the Department of Accounting and Actuarial Science at the School of Economics, Business Administration, Accounting, and Actuarial Science of the University of Sao Paulo (FEA/USP), the journal reflects the institutional transformations that have taken place within the department and FEA/USP over recent decades. The internationalisation of the Graduate Programme in Controllership and Accounting (PPGCC/FEA/USP), initiated in 2002, played a key role in this process by fostering epistemological diversity and methodological innovation (Nova, 2014).

The year 2012 marked a significant milestone in consolidating the Emerging Themes field, with the incorporation of visiting professors into the PPGCC/FEA/USP, who played pivotal roles in this process. Notably, Professor Alan Sangster (then affiliated with Griffith University) introduced the course “History of Accounting”, while Professor David Carter (University of Canberra) established “Critical and Interpretive Theory in Accounting”. These pioneering initiatives laid the foundation for interpretive and critical approaches, which had previously been underexplored in the graduate program. Subsequent collaborations, including Professor Rebecca Ropers-Huilman (University of Minnesota) in 2013 and the return of Professor David Carter in 2014 and 2016, significantly expanded the reach of these perspectives (Nova, 2014), ultimately leading to the institutionalisation of a dedicated editorial space for critical and innovative research.

The appointment of David Carter in 2015 as the inaugural associate editor of the Emerging Themes section in RC&F represented a significant institutional milestone, reflecting the journal’s commitment to transcending conventional disciplinary boundaries and illuminating the social, political, and historical dimensions of accounting practices. This commitment remains steadfast under my leadership as a PPGCC/FEA/USP alumna since October 2024, reaffirming our editorial policy’s dedication to fostering epistemological plurality and actively addressing the barriers identified by Baker and Bettner (1997) in the dissemination of critical accounting research.

The Emerging Themes section is an interdisciplinary platform fostering productive dialogues between Accounting and the Social Sciences, particularly Sociology, Anthropology, and History. This intersection facilitates a critical analytical approach that accounts for the spatial and temporal dimensions of social phenomena, using accounting as an epistemological lens for theoretical inquiry and reflection. The scope of this section holds considerable potential for expansion, allowing critical approaches to be applied to fields such as Finance and Actuarial Science. The relevance of this broadening becomes evident when considering that fundamental critiques of market assumptions predate the emergence of critical studies. A notable example is Polanyi’s seminal work (1944), which challenged the dominant conception of the market as an autonomous and egalitarian entity. Contrary to traditional finance literature, Polanyi argued that financial markets are not self-regulating systems but deeply embedded within the social, political, and cultural structures of their historical contexts.

This editorial aims to critically examine these issues and outline future research directions, reaffirming RC&F’s commitment to a critical perspective in Accounting, Finance, and Actuarial Science. We advocate for an approach that moves beyond the mere description of reality-whether contemporary or historical-by fostering reflections that actively challenge established structures and contribute to the construction of a more equitable and inclusive society. Critical perspectives serve as essential instruments in this regard, enabling scholars to reassess historical legacies that shape the present and liberate inquiry from superficial interpretations and inherited assumptions (Martins, 2007).

Given its interdisciplinary nature, the scope of critical accounting research is broad, encompassing both the understanding and the transformation of processes of social alienation. Key themes explored include analyses of capitalism, environmental issues, diversity, identity politics, and systems of oppression (Fleischman et al., 2012). Additionally, critical studies have investigated the impact of neoliberalism (Lehman et al., 2016), processes of marginalisation and exclusion (Agyemang et al., 2024), and the challenges of developing thought that transcends Eurocentric biases (Sauerbronn et al., 2024). This thematic diversity underscores not only the breadth and depth of the issues addressed but also the potential for transformation through critical research.

From a methodological standpoint, it is crucial to move beyond the false dichotomy that automatically associates quantitative methods with positivist research and qualitative methods with critical inquiry. A critical approach in accounting is fundamentally defined by the theoretical perspective adopted to understand and interpret accounting phenomena, functioning as an interpretive paradigm for data analysis. The emphasis lies on knowledge production rather than on methodological choices per se. Methodology should be intrinsically linked to the research question and investigative objectives. Thus, adopting non-hegemonic theories does not necessarily entail the exclusive use of qualitative methodologies. While critical accounting research has historically favoured qualitative methods (Richardson, 2015), there remains significant untapped potential in employing quantitative and mixed methods, provided they align with the philosophical assumptions and objectives of the study. As emphasised by Topolski (1976), quantitative data, when utilised not as an end but as a tool for addressing specific questions, can substantially enrich critical research. Quantitative methods, for instance, can aid in identifying and categorising critical issues or uncover underlying questions through unexplained variances in data, thereby providing a foundation for more in-depth and reflective critical analyses. This methodological understanding is essential for overcoming reductionist perspectives and expanding investigative possibilities.

Thus, we seek to expand both the thematic scope and methodological approaches in critical research, recognising its capacity to understand and transform complex realities. In the following sections, we will explore promising perspectives that can guide future investigations, fostering dialogue within and beyond the fields of accounting, finance, and actuarial science while promoting a broader and more critical understanding of these disciplines' role in contemporary society.

2 THE CULTURAL TURN IN ACCOUNTING STUDIES

A promising perspective emerging in contemporary accounting research is the field of Cultural Studies in Accounting, which seeks to understand how accounting concepts are constructed, appropriated, and disseminated in different historical and social contexts. This approach establishes a productive dialogue with traditional Cultural Studies, mainly drawing on the seminal contributions of Williams (1976), Burke (2004), Burke and Porter (1987), and Stedman (2013), by examining accounting as a space of symbolic contestation and as a phenomenon reconfigured through cultural exchanges and power relations.

Williams’s (1976) work constitutes a fundamental theoretical foundation for this perspective, especially his analysis of culture as a historically constituted and dynamic system of meanings. In “Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society”, Williams meticulously traces the semantic evolution of key cultural and societal concepts, demonstrating that they are not static but rather reflect ongoing social tensions and transformations. A crucial aspect of his approach is highlighting the “defeated” meanings in these semantic struggles-those interpretations that have been marginalised or suppressed over time. Applying this perspective to accounting, it becomes possible to trace the historical trajectory of fundamental concepts such as “equity”, “profit”, “transparency”, and “fair value”, analysing not only how their meanings have been negotiated and contested in different historical and cultural contexts but also which alternative conceptions have been overlooked in this process. This analysis enables a deeper understanding of the mechanisms shaping accounting language and the processes through which certain notions become hegemonic. In contrast, others are silenced or reconfigured to align with specific power and market logic.

The investigation of semantic transformations extends to the intersections between accounting and related fields such as economics, finance, and actuarial science. Concepts such as “risk”, “value”, and “market” permeate these disciplines, carrying contested and often contradictory meanings. A cultural analysis of these terms can reveal how different professional communities construct and legitimise their own understandings, frequently engaging in jurisdictional and epistemic authority disputes (Abbott, 1988; Burke, 1987).

Moreover, the proposed cultural-semantic approach allows for the examination of how technical accounting language functions as an instrument of power and exclusion. The increasing complexity of professional terminology can be interpreted as a response to technical demands and a strategy for delineating professional boundaries and maintaining epistemic privileges (Burke, 1987). This dimension becomes particularly relevant when considering how the construction and legitimisation of a professional field are intrinsically linked to discourse control and the regulation of knowledge access.

Cultural Studies in Accounting also benefit significantly from the reflections on cultural exchange proposed by Stedman (2013). Stedman examines how cultural elements are transferred, adapted, and reinterpreted in transnational interactions, emphasising the role of networks, agents, and institutional configurations in these processes. In the accounting domain, this approach enables an analysis of how standards, practices, and concepts travel across societies and are appropriated in distinct ways. For instance, the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) can be understood not merely as a technical evolution but as a process of cultural imposition and adaptation, in which peripheral countries internalise global standards without necessarily considering their local specificities. This adoption also entails a significant loss of autonomy in defining accounting norms. Previously, Brazilian accountants and institutions determined national standards; however, by adhering to external guidelines, there is a risk that country-specific issues will not be adequately addressed, given Brazil’s peripheral position in the international accounting regulatory agenda.

In this context, incorporating Quijano’s (1992, 2005) coloniality theory becomes essential for understanding the power asymmetries that characterise the circulation of accounting concepts. Quijano argues that coloniality persists in the organisation of knowledge and the subordination of peripheral epistemologies, even after the formal end of colonialism. This concept can be applied to the accounting field by analysing how standards and practices originating from Europe and the United States are often regarded as superior, while local contributions are devalued or rendered invisible. Bárbara Pinheiro’s (2023) conceptualisation of coloniality as a psychological pattern of existential degradation offers a valuable interpretative lens for understanding how this logic manifests in accounting, leading to the internalisation of inferiority and the uncritical acceptance of foreign models.

This scenario underscores the need for an approach that not only documents the circulation of accounting concepts but also critically examines the power dynamics inherent in this process. Cultural Studies in Accounting could thus explore fundamental questions such as: Who are the agents responsible for disseminating specific accounting concepts? How do the translations and adaptations of these concepts reflect local disputes and negotiations? In what ways have certain accounting practices been marginalised due to the hegemony of imported models?

Moreover, this approach significantly contributes to the debate on the decolonisation of accounting thought. Rather than merely replicating foreign models, it becomes possible to recognise the value of local practices and epistemologies, fostering the development of concepts better suited to the economic and cultural specificities of peripheral countries. This movement can align with existing initiatives in other fields that seek to dismantle Eurocentric logic and promote a more pluralistic and inclusive science.

Cultural Studies in Accounting also engage in productive dialogues with contemporary debates on language and performativity, particularly the reflections of Butler (1990) and Bourdieu (1982, 1991). Accounting does not merely reflect reality; it actively constitutes it, performing and naturalising specific power relations. The structuring of numbers, reports, and financial statements shapes perceptions of the economy and organisations, functioning as a mechanism for producing social reality. This performative dimension can be examined from a cultural perspective, investigating how accounting discourses legitimise certain practices over others and how accounting language itself may operate as an instrument of domination or resistance.

In summary, Cultural Studies in Accounting represent an innovative and necessary theoretical-methodological approach to expanding the boundaries of accounting research. By integrating critical, historical, and cultural perspectives, this framework allows for an understanding of accounting not merely as a measurement technique but as a dynamic social phenomenon. Through this lens, it becomes possible to challenge hegemonies, recognise local knowledge, and contribute to a more reflective and emancipatory approach to accounting thought. This emerging field offers significant potential to address contemporary challenges in accounting and its interrelationship with global power dynamics.

3 PROFESSION OR PROFESSIONAL PROJECTS

The historical trajectory of the accounting profession constitutes a research domain of particular epistemological relevance. The historiography of this field has undergone a significant paradigmatic shift, moving away from predominantly technical and celebratory narratives towards more critical and contextually grounded analyses. Historically, accounting has occupied a peripheral position in studies on the sociology of professions and occupational historiography, often being characterised as an emergent and mimetic profession in contrast to more established fields such as medicine and law.

Contemporary historiography, however, has substantially expanded its analytical scope, examining the intricate relationships between the accounting profession and state, cultural, and economic dimensions across multiple scales. This methodological renewal highlights how different national contexts have developed specific strategies for professional legitimation-ranging from the British emphasis on credentials and public reputation to the American approach based on scientific principles.

A particularly notable aspect of this process is the jurisdictional flexibility of the accounting profession, reflecting its adaptive capacity in response to emerging market demands, as exemplified by the significant expansion of corporate auditing (Boussebaa, 2015). However, this expansion does not occur uniformly; contextual factors shape it and, at times, are constrained by technical limitations, as observed in specific historical periods of North American cost accounting (Fleischman & Tyson, 1999).

It is imperative, however, to critically examine the notion of a universal model of successful professionalisation. Walker (1999) argues that professional consolidation is intrinsically dependent on an occupational group’s ability to recognise and strategically mobilise specific contextual contingencies. Abbott (1988) provides a foundational theoretical framework for analysing this mobilisation through the concept of jurisdictional disputes, highlighting the continuous renegotiation of occupational boundaries among related professions such as accountants, actuaries, and economists.

The geopolitical dimension emerges as a crucial factor in shaping the accounting profession, particularly in relation to the influences of colonialism and nationalism. Case studies of emblematic contexts, such as Fiji and Trinidad and Tobago, illustrate contrasting trajectories of professional development, revealing significant tensions between internationalisation and the construction of national identities (Annisette, 2000; Davie, 2000). Furthermore, critical historiography has illuminated the dimensions of social exclusion within the accounting profession, examining how markers of race, class, and gender have historically influenced access to and participation in the field. Gender issues, in particular, underscore persistent structural barriers to female involvement (Gallhofer, 1998).

The discourse on inclusion and diversity in accounting has been extensively debated internationally, particularly in English-speaking countries (Kornberger et al., 2010; McNicholas et al., 2004). The prominence of this debate in other regions underscores its significance and reinforces the need to consider it in additional contexts. However, this does not imply that the conclusions drawn from these studies can be directly and indiscriminately applied to the Brazilian reality. A recurring limitation of this body of academic work is its tendency toward universalism-that is, adopting models developed in specific contexts without adequately considering the historical and sociocultural particularities of other regions. The Brazilian case, for instance, requires an approach that acknowledges how racial and class inequalities are embedded in the structuring of the profession, shaping both access to and career progression within the accounting field.

In the Brazilian context, the analysis of accounting professionalisation requires investigations that move beyond the reductionist tendency to adopt exogenous models-particularly the Anglo-Saxon paradigm-as superior normative frameworks. Furthermore, it is essential to avoid generalisations that extrapolate region-specific analyses, such as those centred on São Paulo, treating them as representative of the national reality as a whole. The historiography of the accounting profession must adopt a multi-scalar approach that considers local, regional, and national dimensions, acknowledging the heterogeneity and sociocultural specificities that have shaped its diverse trajectories of institutionalisation. This approach should go beyond merely identifying such differences by contextualising the findings within a comparative perspective. Such an endeavour involves understanding how the accounting profession has evolved in different regions of Brazil and how these variations interact with global trends, thereby facilitating analyses that highlight local specificities and their integration into transnational networks and dynamics.

The intersection of accounting history with broader debates on professions and social transformations enhances the understanding of the interactions between accounting, society, and structures of power. This perspective extends the relevance of historical research beyond the disciplinary boundaries of accounting, fostering dialogue with related fields such as finance and actuarial science. A deeper examination of these dynamics contributes to the development of explanatory theoretical frameworks that extend beyond merely descriptive approaches, offering a more substantive understanding of the transformations and contestations that shape professions over time.

4 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

This editorial has outlined promising perspectives for advancing critical research in accounting, finance, and actuarial science, emphasising two fundamental strands: Cultural Studies in Accounting and the Analysis of the Profession and its Professional Projects. The Emerging Themes section of the Revista de Contabilidade e Finanças serves as a key space for developing these approaches, establishing itself as a locus for producing and disseminating critical and reflective knowledge.

These perspectives underscore the need to transcend purely technical views by recognising the social, cultural, and political dimensions inherent in these fields of knowledge. The cultural-semantic approach enables the examination of how concepts and practices are constructed and contested across different contexts. At the same time, an analysis of professional projects reveals the complex power dynamics that shape the institutionalisation of professions.

A commitment to a critical and decolonial perspective is imperative for the future development of these fields, particularly within Brazilian and Latin American contexts. This approach entails challenging established hegemonies and valuing local epistemologies and practices, thereby contributing to the development of a more pluralistic and emancipatory body of knowledge.

We invite the academic community to engage with these research avenues, advancing studies that foster a deeper and more critical understanding of accounting, finance, and actuarial phenomena. The consolidation of these fields represents both a theoretical and methodological advancement and a commitment to social transformation and the development of a more reflective and socially responsible science.

References

• Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions: An essay on the Division of Expert Labour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Agyemang, G., Dhanani, A., Ejiofu, A., & Perkiss, S. (2024). Researching race, accounting and accountability: past, present and future. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, 37(7-8), 1637-1664. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/AAAJ-03-2024-6976
  » https://doi.org/ 10.1108/AAAJ-03-2024-6976
• Annisette, M. (2000). Imperialism and the professions: the education and certification of accountants in Trinidad and Tobago. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(7), 631-659. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00061-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00061-6
• Baker, C. R.; Bettner, M. S. (1997). Interpretive and critical research in accounting: a commentary on its absence from mainstream accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 8(4), 193-310. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.1996.0116
  » https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.1996.0116
• Ball, R., & Brown, P. (1968). An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting Income Numbers.Journal of Accounting Research, 6(2), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490232
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2490232
• Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris: Fayard.
• Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (Raymond, G. and Adamson, M., trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Boussebaa, M. (2015). Professional service firms, globalisation and the new imperialism. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28 (8), 1217-1233.
• Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A. G., Hughes, J., Nahapiet, J. (1980). The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(80)90017-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(80)90017-3
• Burke, P. (1987). Introduction. In Burke, P., & Porter, R. (Eds.). (1987). The social history of language. Cambridge University Press.
• Burke, P. (2004). What is Cultural History Polity Press.
• Burke, P., & Porter, R. (Eds.). (1987). The social history of language. Cambridge University Press.
• Butler, J. (2006). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Davie, S. S. K. (2000), Accounting for imperialism: a case of British‐imposed indigenous collaboration, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 330-359. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570010334900
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570010334900
• Fleischman, R.K., Funnell, W., & Walker, S. (Eds.). (2012). Critical Histories of Accounting: Sinister Inscriptions in the Modern Era. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203102749
  » https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203102749
• Fleischman, R. K., & Tyson, T. (1999). Opportunity lost? Chances for cost accountants’ professionalization under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933.Accounting, Business & Financial History, 9(1), 51-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/095852099330368
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/095852099330368
• Gallhofer, S. (1998). The silence of mainstream feminist accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9, 355-375. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.1997.0191
  » https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.1997.0191
• Hines, R. D. (1988). Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(3), 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(88)90003-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(88)90003-7
• Hopwood, A. G. (1976). Editorial. The path ahead. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(76)90002-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(76)90002-7
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(83)90035-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(83)90035-1
• Kornberger, M., Carter, C., & Ross-Smith, A. (2010). Changing gender discrimination in a Big four accounting firm: flexibility, performance and client service in practice. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 35, 775-791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2010.09.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2010.09.005
• Lehman, C., Annisette, M. and Agyemang, G. (2016), Immigration and neoliberalism: three cases and counter accounts. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 43-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2013-1470
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2013-1470
• Martins, E. C. R. (2007). O enigma do passado: construção social da memória histórica. Textos de História, 15(1/2), 35-48. Recuperado de: https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/textos/article/view/27981/24039
  » https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/textos/article/view/27981/24039
• McNicholas, P., Humphries, M., & Gallhofer, S. (2004). Maintaining the empire: Maori women’s experiences in the accountancy profession. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(1), 57-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00007-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00007-8
• Nova, S. P. C. C. (2014). Contabilidade das mulheres na universidade brasileira: lucros e perdas, ingresso e permanência. [Tese de livre-docência, Universidade de São Paulo].
• Pinheiro, B. C. S. (2023). Como ser um educador antirracista São Paulo: Planeta do Brasil.
• Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Quijano, A. (1992). Colonialidad y modernidad/racionalidad. Perú Indígena, 13(29), 11-20.
• Quijano, A. (2005). Colonialidade do poder, eurocentrismo e América Latina. In E. Lander (Org.), A Colonialidade do Saber: Eurocentrismo e Ciências Sociais, Perspectivas Latino-Americanas (pp. 117-142). São Paulo: CLACSO.
• Richardson, A. J. (2015). Quantitative research and the critical accounting project. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 32, 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.04.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.04.007
• Sauerbronn, F. F., Ayres, R. M., Silva, C. M., & Lourenço, R. L. (2024). Decolonial studies in accounting? Emerging contributions from Latin America. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 99, 102281.
• Sauerbronn, F. F., Homero Junior, P., Araujo, M. C., Carvalho, T. F. M., & Lima, J. P. R. (2023). Pesquisa Crítica em Contabilidade: um campo de possibilidades. Revista Mineira De Contabilidade, 24(3), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.51320/rmc.v24i3.1579
  » https://doi.org/10.51320/rmc.v24i3.1579
• Stedman, G. (2013) Cultural Exchange in Seveenteenth-Century France and England. Ashgate
• Tinker, A. M. (1980). Towards a political economy of accounting: An empirical illustration of the Cambridge controversies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(80)90031-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(80)90031-8
• Tinker, A. M., Merino, B. D. & Neimark, M. D. (1978) The Normative Origins of Positive Theories: ideology and accounting thought. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(2), 167-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(82)90019-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(82)90019-8
• Topolski, J. (1976). Methodology of history Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company
• Walker, S. P. (1999). Introduction. Accounting, Business & Financial History, 9(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/095852099330331
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/095852099330331
• Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1978). Towards a Positive Theory of the Determination of Accounting Standards. The Accounting Review, 53(1), 112-134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/245729
  » http://www.jstor.org/stable/245729
• Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  25 Apr 2025
• Date of issue
  2025