Kuhnian interpretation of the historical evolution of accounting

              The Accounting Historians Journal Vol. 16, No. 2 December 1989
Barry E. Cushing THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
A KUHNIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF ACCOUNTING
Abstract: Distinct parallels exist between the historical evolution of scientific disciplines, as explained in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and the historical evolution of the accounting discipline. These parallels become apparent when ac-counting's dominant paradigm is interpreted to be the double-entry bookkeeping model. Following this interpretation, the exten-sive articulation of the double-entry model over the past four centuries may be seen to closely resemble the "normal science" of Kuhn's theory. Further parallels become apparent when Kuhn's concept of the disciplinary crises that precede scientific revolutions is compared to developments in the accounting discipline over the past 25 years. This portrayal of accounting's evolution suggests an uncertain future for the accounting discipline.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the historical evolution of the accounting discipline from the perspective of Thomas Kuhn's classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [1970a]. Kuhn's book offers profound insights into the evolution of scientific disciplines, and therefore may help us to better understand past and present trends in the accounting discipline. This paper cites many aspects of the historical evolution of accounting which may be interpreted in ways that are consis-tent with a detailed examination of Kuhn's theory. This exercise in historical interpretation offers a new and interesting perspec-tive on the history of the accounting discipline, and is also suggestive of some alternative ways in which accounting might evolve in the future.
The historical evolution of scientific disciplines has been addressed by a number of philosophers in addition to Kuhn, including Lakatos [1970] and Feyerabend [1975]. This is not an appropriate forum for addressing the question of which of these
I wish to express my appreciation for helpful comments by seminar participants at Case Western Reserve University, Columbia University, McMas-ter University, Ohio State University, Penn State University, and the University of Utah. The specific comments of Haim Falk, Gary Previts, Bob Sterling, and Steve Zeff were particularly helpful.