Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
00 + O0
Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Press Ltd
C, E D W A R D A R R I N G T O N
Louisiana State University
and
WILLIAM SCHWEIKER
The University o f Chicago
Abstract
This essay suggests the value of a rhetorical understanding of accounting research practice Rhetoric reminds
us that despite the methodological dtfferences across various accounting research communities, there is a
ubtquity to argument m scholarly practice. No matter what kinds of questions accounting researchers
address, no matter what methods they apply to those questions, no matter what languages they evoke, and no
matter what purposes and values they attach to the research enterprtse, nothing counts as accounting
knowledge until it ts argued before one's peers Thus, while rhetoric as not going to substitute for the many
and different substanttve ways m which accounting researchers produce accounting knowledge, neither can
those substantive methods substitute for rhetorm An understanding of rhetoric's role within research is
thereby necessary to understand the practice of accounting research and, m turn, the knowledge such
practice produces
* The first draft of this essay was written some five years ago Many people therefore deserve our apprectation. Anthony
Hopwood, Marilyn Netmark and Jerry Salamon have taught us much about our own rhetoric Ewa Bardach, Dick Boland,
Jere Francis, Trevor Hopper, Bill Kinney, Don McCloskey, Barbara Merino, Peter Miller, Tony Puxty, K. Raghunandan, Teri
Shearer, Iris Smart, Mike Welker and Paul Williams have helped tremendously. We would also like to thank participants at
the annual meetings of the American Accounting Association and the European Accounting Assoctation, as well as
workshop participants at The University of North Texas. We also thank Jay Semel, Lorna Olson, and our colleagues at the
Center for Advanced Studies at The University of Iowa. Two anonymous revtewers have had thetr pattence limitlessly
stretched; our debts to them are excessive
511
512 c E ARRINGTONand W. SCHWEIKER
The blurring of reason and power is what makes attempts to ground accounting knowledge in a "market", all the whtle
foregoing discusston of the soctologtcal and historical features of that market, suspect (see Watts & Zimmerman, 1979,
Kinney, 1986). We discuss thts msue later m the essay.
514 c E ARRINGTONand W. SCHWEIKER
2 Burke (1969), Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca(1969), Ricoeur (1977), and, of course, Aristotle'sRbetortc are useful sources
for systematic study of rhetoric
RHETORICOF ACCOUNTING 515
training, beliefs, perspectives on a subject in which accounting acts are situated (see
matter, departmental identities, or what Crane BurcheU et al., 1985; Morgan, 1988; Hopwood,
( 1 9 7 2 ) calls "invisible colleges" that serve as 1989; Arrington & Puxty, 1991). Accounting
national or even international consortia of can thus be configured across so very many
scholars, etc. Research communities can be different experiential dimensions that any in-
identified in different ways: substantively (per- telligible knowledge claim about accounting is
spectives taken on the accounting phenomenon); irredeemably partial. That partiality is an arti-
linguistically (the languages and methods in fact of h o w researchers construct accounting as
which researchers write and speak); institu- a p h e n o m e n o n (see Chua, 1986; Hines, 1988).
tionally (e.g. a particular school, a special The empirical diffuseness of the accounting
interest section of professional organizations, phenomenon, though certainly no more diffuse
specific conferences, or a particular journal in than other fields, is one reason w h y there are
which a c o m m u n i t y publishes). many different accounting research communi-
Research communities are interesting both ties working to p r o d u c e many different bodies
sociologically and rhetorically. A research com- of accounting knowledge (though the influence
munity, as an anticipated audience, conditions of these different communities over accounting
the invention of knowledge inasmuch as a knowledge certainly varies substantially, a
researcher's reflections on audience influence variance somewhat attributable to differential
the kind of knowledge claim that he or she control over the training of Ph.D. students, over
produces as well as the style of presenting that curricula, and over journals).
knowledge claim. That is not to say that a Morgan ( 1 9 8 8 ) speaks in this sense of various
researcher can anticipate all readers; nor is it to metaphors for research throughout the social
say that knowledge claims are products of sciences. Among the dominant metaphors that
nothing but anticipation of an audience. But it is he identifies as influential over accounting
to say that research takes place against a knowledge are accounting as history, as infor-
background assumption about w h o the likely mation, as language, as politics, as mythology, as
readers are, and that assumption conditions ideology, and as domination and exploitation.
knowledge production in at least three different Boland ( 1 9 8 9 ) adds others. These metaphors
ways. It influences the subject m a t t e r of are not just literary devices; they are, as Morgan
accounting research; that is, the way in which explains, necessary because of the empirical
the p h e n o m e n o n of accounting gets configured richness of social practices like accounting:
in a knowledge claim. It influences the com-
p o s i t i o n of accounting research: the languages All these metaphors have been developed to form
chosen, the style of writing, the voice and competing interpretations regarding the nature and
personae that an author enacts. Third, anticipa- significanceof accounting . Interestingly,they all grasp
tion of an audience influences the values w i t h stgnificant elements of what accounting is all about, and
often suggest~ interesting principles for accounting
which research is aligned in two ways: choices design. However, no one metaphor grasps the total
about the ends and purposes of accounting as nature of accounting as a social phenomenon, for
well as of scholarship. We discuss each of these accounting, like other aspects of social life, is inherently
three in turn. complex, multi-dimensional and paradoxical (p 481 ).
3 Somettmes, scholars beheve that there ts some single language that ts not just another way of descrtbing and redescribmg
accounting but the best language. We cannot debate the various clatms and counter-claims that surround such behef, but
we doubt that there is any such language avatlable to accounting We doubt, for example, that accounting knowledge
would be enhanced by trying to render the multtphcttous consequences for those affected by tt intelhgible through, say,
mathematics To paraphrase Rorty (1979), attempts to grant eplstemtc ptaority to a single language are based on the rather
odd notion that the '~orld", or "reality", or "accounting" has some language of its own: "Nature's Own Vocabulary" Geertz
(1988) makes a simdar point in parodying the" strange idea that reahty has an idiom m whtch it prefers to be descrtbed,
that tts very nature demands we talk about tt without fuss" (p 140)
RHETORIC OF ACCOUNTING 517
4 Required modes of cttation mfluence argumentative practice and therefore the quahty of knowledge In a fascmatmg
essay, Bazerman (1987) shows how the sctentlstic style of the current Amertcan Psychologtcal Association's Publication
Manual forces research into behavioristic paradigms through requtrements about how papers are to be organized into
various sections and subsections, what is to be included in each section, and string citations He maps the historical
development of such "requtred" forms to different bodies of knowledge that have dominated psychology in the twentmth
century, showing how each required "form" is differentially compatible with bodtes of psychological knowledge This
hlstormal mappmg provides concrete ewdence on the interrelattons between rhetoric and knowledge, and it would be
interesting to attempt such an essay in accounting See also Bourd~eu (1988)
518 C E. ARRINGTON and W SCHWEIKER
o f k n o w l e d g e c l a i m s is d e t e r m i n e d b y a n t i c i p a - figuration, stylistics, a n d a r r a n g e m e n t , a n d h e o r
tion of two very different audiences that may be s h e finds r a w m a t e r i a l in t r o p e s , m e t a p h o r s ,
loosely aligned with one or the other of these figures o f s p e e c h , a n d g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s .
perspectives.) M c C l o s k e y ( 1 9 8 5 ) p u s h e s t h e s t y l i s t i c p o i n t so
T h r o u g h t e c h n i q u e s like t h o s e d i s c u s s e d far as t o s p e a k o f t h e " l i t e r a r y c h a r a c t e r " o f his
a b o v e , an i n t e l l i g i b l e s e n s e o f a c c o u n t i n g as a own discipline, economics:
s u b j e c t m a t t e r t a k e s s h a p e . B u t w h a t is intelli-
g i b l e as a c c o u n t i n g t o o n e r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y The workaday methods of economic scientists .. are
literary, an inescapable remark when one recognizes
is s o m e t i m e s c l o s e r t o u n i n t e l l i g i b l e t o a n o t h e r . that the scientific paper ts, of course, a literary genre
I n d e e d , t h e r e is p r o b a b l y m o r e d i s a g r e e m e n t with an actual author, an implied author, an imphed
a b o u t w h a t a c c o u n t i n g is a n d w h a t it is n o t reader, a history, and a form. When an economist says,
a m o n g a c c o u n t i n g r e s e a r c h e r s t h a t t h e r e is in as he frequently does, "The demand curve slopes
down", he ts using the Englmh language; and ff he is
the broader polity. But however one configures
usmg it to persuade, as he frequently ts, he ts a rhetor,
accounting, rhetoric helps describe methodology whether he knows or likes it or not A scienttfic paper,
i n a s m u c h as a n y c o n f i g u r a t i o n is c o n d i t i o n e d and an assertion wtthin it . does literary deeds.
b y an i m p l i e d a u d i e n c e a n d t h e n e e d t o Sctentific assertions are speech acts m a scene of
persuade them. sctenttfic tradition by the scmntist-agent through the
agency of the usual figures of speech for purposes of
describmg nature or mankand better than the next
Rhetoric a n d composition: the q u e s t i o n o f fellow (p. 57)
style
T h e f o r m as w e l l as t h e c o n t e n t o f a T h i s is n o t t o say t h a t e c o n o m i c s , o r
k n o w l e d g e c l a i m c o n d i t i o n s its a c c e p t a b i l i t y t o a c c o u n t i n g , is e n h a n c e d b y m i m i c r y o f t h e
an a u d i e n c e . A n e l e g a n t r e s e a r c h d e s i g n , o r l i t e r a t i ( t h o u g h , as M c C l o s k e y n o t e s , M a d a m e
e q u a t i o n , o r h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a t i v e , like an e l e g a n t B o v a r y is a m o r e b e l i e v a b l e e c o n o m i c b e i n g
c h a r a c t e r ( J a n e A u s t e n ' s E m m a ? ) , affects an than "that great stick of a character Homo
audience positively. Put strongly, accounting economicus", p. 6 5 ) . It is t o say t h a t o n e is n o t
r e s e a r c h e r s n e e d a l i t e r a r y c o m p e t e n c e inas- g o i n g t o g e t v e r y far w i t h an a u d i e n c e ,
m u c h as h o w t h e y c o m m u n i c a t e has s o m e f o r c e academic or otherwise, without a great deal of
o v e r t h e p e r s u a s i v e n e s s a n d i n d e e d t h e in- h a r d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l w o r k in a t t e n d i n g t o
t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f a k n o w l e d g e claim. A n a c c o u n t - c o m p o s i t i o n a n d style.
i n g r e s e a r c h e r p r a c t i c e s an art o f c o m p o s i t i o n , Different accounting research communities
RHETORICOF ACCOUNTING 519
prefer different styles. Consider character governed by a technicist rationality with ends
development. Some e m b r a c e H o m o econo- given and unproblematic.
micus. Others find such one-dimensional and Each of these genres appeals to different
emotivistic characters something o t h e r than research communities - - the different ques-
human; not descriptive, not explanatory, not tions that c o n c e r n them, the different levels of
real. These communities give great weight to complexity within which they situate account-
the complexities of subjectivity, even in settings ing, the different languages they speak, the
w h e r e private wealth appropriation is an in- different values and purposes that they set for
teUigible goal of action. Or consider plot. Some accounting research demand different styles,
research communities value reductive parsimony different genres. To the extent that these
two-person games are the limit; narratives various styles are conditioned by anticipation of
must be reducible to samples, h o m o g e n e o u s in an audience, they are rhetorical.
every way e x c e p t one (a treatment effect).
Some research communities take the produc- Rhetoric a n d the value o f accounting research
tion of accounting as a given, beginning their Any c o m m u n i t y that honors its values takes
plots at s o m e putative "use-level" of accounting available opportunity to celebrate those values,
output. Others, critical theorists or positive and research communities are no different.
theorists, for example, are m o r e interested in Different communities embrace different values,
the historical processes that give rise to account- both for accounting and for accounting research.
ing, though they have quite different under- And such values are, for several reasons, of
standings of what those historical processes are. rhetorical interest. First, situated within the
Others, "normative" income theorists, trans- h u m a n sciences, the accounting p h e n o m e n o n
cendentalize accounting by distancing them- is morally diffuse; that is, there is no singular
selves from the concrete, empirical constraints interest, value, or good that resides at the
of accounting's production, in order to write moral-ontological origin of the accounting
purely in the domain of the ideational - - of p h e n o m e n o n (see Hopwood, 1989), nor is
w h a t accounting ought to be in light of their there a kind of "teleological map" that would
beliefs about the "best" of all possible worlds. objectively prioritize values within which
The notion of various genres of accounting accounting is intertwined (see Arrington &
research makes sense in the context of style and Puxty, 1991). For example, in making a claim
composition. Kinney ( 1 9 8 6 ) p r o m o t e s a hyper- about accounting, one might grant moral priority
reductive style w e d d e d to the g r a m m a r of to private wealth appropriation, to production,
agricultural statistics and linear variance split- to any of a n u m b e r of social welfare criteria, to
ting, oddly and hyperbolically suggesting this the interests of the profession, or managers, or
style as a "generic" approach to empirical investors, or even those ordinary laborers
accounting research. Normative theorists pro- subjected to accounting practice (laborers
m o t e a transcendental genre, a speculative style who, w e might add, are usually forgotten in
s o m e w h a t like romantic p o e t r y inasmuch as it arguments about the value context of account-
expresses a longing for an idealized accounting ing). An accounting researcher may b o r r o w a
without confronting the e c o n o m i c and social value-context from a range of discourses about
constraints o n such ideals. Marxist accountants rights, wealth, responsibilities, accountability,
often write like Charles Dickens or American etc. The selection of any one of these contex-
realists in the 1930s; stories of ordinary humans tual fields of value is always both contingent
suffering for economic (and accounting) reasons, and a candidate for critique inasmuch as each
though often their claims to "realism" are value-perspective can provide a normative
suspect. Some, those w h o write for practitioners, f r a m e w o r k for problematizing the others.
stay in the genre of the technical engineering The multiplicity of value-contexts for account-
manual, construing accounting as if it w e r e ing has as its corollary the p r e s e n c e of a n u m b e r
520 C E ARRINGTONand W SCHWEIKER
5 Two points about Popper's claim are interesting He attributes this advent of science to the ancient Greeks, not to
modernist methods. Second, if Popper ~s correct, then it is difficult to tell the difference between those disciplines typically
called "scientific" as opposed to "unscientific" That is because all scholars practice non-dogmatic and critical dmcusslon
McCloskey (1985) and Rorty (1987) may just be taght m claiming that the distraction between "science" and "non-
science" has lost point What seems to matter more than some "hierarchy" of disciplines is the fact that scholars m every
field are trying to generate useful beliefs through critical argumentation. That is a point that follows from Popper's claim,
but a point that he conveniently overlooks as be discusses an "open" society that, oddly, has little place for "fustoricists",
"Marxksts", "theologians" and other sorts of scholars to "openly" participate m "critical discussion and debate" (see
McCloskey, 1985) As a caveat, we are not like Popper interested in promoting some scholarly discourses as "science" and
others as "non-science", a move which often functions rhetorically to relegate many disciphnes to "second-rate" status We
discuss this point later in the essay
6 Nozlck is not endorsing such a view on scholarly argument, he is merely descrtbmg the character of such argument as
practiced.
522 c E ARRINGTONand W SCHWEIKER
e-valuations that o t h e r s a s c r i b e to it. T h e ttonal status, may be of social value in the sense of bemg
"value" o f a k n o w l e d g e claim, e v e n w i t h i n a appropriable by other people The actual value of a
g i v e n r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y , is r a d i c a l l y c o n t i n - parttcular evaluatton, however, will itself be highly
contangent, depending on such variables as the specific
gent. Different individuals p e r c e i v e different social and institutional context in which tt is produced,
i n t e r e s t s at stake in a k n o w l e d g e claim, for b o t h the specific social and instituttonal relatton between the
m o t i v a t i o n a l a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a l reasons. F o r speaker and his/her listener(s), the spectfic structure of
example, the producer of a knowledge claim mterests that motivates and constrains the entire social/
t y p i c a l l y has m o r e at stake t h a n his o r h e r verbal transaction in which the evaluation figures, a vast
and not ultimately numerable or ltstable set of variables
interlocutors m reputation, monetary income, relatmg to, among other things, the soctal, cultural and
p r o m o t i o n , t e n u r e , p r i d e , etc. P e r h a p s e d i t o r s verbal histories of those involved and, of course, the
'~¢orry" about the "consequences" of publish- particular perspective from which that value is being
ing a p a p e r m o r e so t h a n d o a u t h o r s o r figured (p. 5)
r e v i e w e r s ; or, at a m i n i m u m , t h e y p e r c e i v e
t h o s e c o n s e q u e n c e s differently. Ph.D. s t u d e n t s T h e r e are m a n y " c u r r e n c i e s " , m a n y m e d i a for
w o r r y a b o u t "pleasing" t h e i r m e n t o r s ; t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a n d influence o v e r k n o w l e d g e
m e n t o r s w o r r y a b o u t h o w d i s s e r t a t i o n s will b e production, within economies of research:
" r e c e i v e d " b y o t h e r universities. T h e r e are p o w e r , r e p u t a t i o n , a c c e s s to grants, p o s i t i o n
countless other motivational differences among w i t h i n an e d u c a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y ( p r o f e s s o r ,
m e m b e r s o f a r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y , a n d all o f assistant p r o f e s s o r , d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t , etc.),
them help explain the contestability of know- f o r m a l a p p o i n t m e n t s as editors, r e v i e w e r s , etc.
l e d g e claims b y s u g g e s t i n g that different e- ( s e e B o u r d i e u , 1988; M c G e e & Lyne, 1987;
v a l u a t i o n s w i l l b e b r o u g h t to b e a r u p o n it. O v e r i n g t o n , 1977; Williams, 1985). R h e t o r i c is
T h e r e are informational as w e l l as motivational o n e s u c h " c u r r e n c y " o f this c o m p l e x e v a l u a t i v e
a s y m m e t r i e s b e t w e e n r e s e a r c h e r s a n d inter- e c o n o m y i n a s m u c h as t h e "value" o f a k n o w -
locutors. For example, the researcher knows l e d g e c l a i m rises a n d falls w i t h t h e a p p e a l o f
m o r e a b o u t t h e c o n t e x t in w h i c h a k n o w l e d g e a r g u m e n t s m a d e t o s u p p o r t o r to refute t h a t
claim was p r o d u c e d ( h o w it transpired, obstacles claim. As w e h a v e a l r e a d y seen, t h e i n v e n t i o n o f
p l a c e d b e f o r e its p r o d u c t i o n , etc.). Likewise, a k n o w l e d g e c l a i m is c o n d i t i o n e d b y a k i n d o f
e d i t o r s h a v e " p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n " as t h e y r h e t o r i c a l " i n v e s t m e n t " that a r e s e a r c h e r m a k e s
"broker" correspondence between authors and at t h e o u t s e t t h r o u g h a n t i c i p a t i n g w h a t p e r -
r e v i e w e r s , e v e n if s u c h " b r o k e r i n g " is n o t h i n g s p e c t i v e s o n a c c o u n t i n g , w h a t d i s c u r s i v e styles,
more than receiving personal letters from each a n d w h a t values a " m a r k e t " / r e s e a r c h c o m -
camp. Authors and interlocutors have read m u n i t y are likely to find a p p e a l i n g a n d w o r t h y .
different b o o k s a n d articles and, in general, But a r g u m e n t s r e m a i n to b e m a d e , a n d t h o s e
h a v e e x p e r i e n c e d different a c a d e m i c histories. arguments are the substance out of which
Thus, t h e y b r i n g different c o m p e t e n c i e s a n d " m a r k e t s for k n o w l e d g e " are m a d e .
s o m e w h a t different h e r m e n e u t i c a l p o s t u r e s to A t t e n t i o n to t h e " e c o n o m i c s " o f k n o w l e d g e
b e a r u p o n a k n o w l e d g e claim. F o r t h e s e and m a k e s this essay b o t h like a n d u n l i k e t h e
o t h e r reasons, t h e "value" o f a k n o w l e d g e c l a i m p o s i t i o n o f W a t t s & Z i m m e r m a n ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Like
as it c i r c u l a t e s w i t h i n t h e p o l i t i c a l e c o n o m y o f a t h e m , w e r e c o g n i z e t h a t r e s e a r c h is t o s o m e
r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y is r a d i c a l l y c o n t i n g e n t a n d e x t e n t a s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d pursuit. That is s i m p l y
s u b j e c t to differential e-valuations, all o f w h i c h b e c a u s e r e s e a r c h e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in a d i s c i p l i n e
fuel a r g u m e n t a t i v e p r a c t i c e . As Smith ( 1 9 8 7 ) like a c c o u n t i n g t h a t is m a d e u p o f l a r g e l y
explains, this t r a n s p i r e s as a k i n d o f r h e t o r i c a l bourgeois rather than aristocratic academics,
e c o n o m y w h e r e k n o w l e d g e claims circulate. must, like a n y o n e else, earn livelihoods. Research
is p e r h a p s t h e m o s t salient m o d e o f p r o d u c t i o n
Any evaluation . no matter what its manifest syntactic for s u c h livelihoods.
form, ostensible "vahdtty clatrn", and putative proposl- H o w e v e r , a s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d m o t i v e is m e r e l y
RHETORICOF ACCOUNTING 523
one among many causal forces at work in the practice is far richer and more complex than a
e c o n o m y of research. At a psychologistic level, simple emotivistic theory can accommodate.
the level at which Watts and Zimmerman The sociology of rhetoric. Research com-
position their argument, choices and actions munities, like any other, have their own
are influenced by any n u m b e r of "motives" and traditions, customs, mores, institutions, lan-
desires. Indeed, it would be quite easy to name guages, hierarchies, systems of governance, and
accounting researchers w h o (like Socrates) even geographies (e.g. the "Chicago" school).
k n o w that their research has negative economic Nelson ( 1 9 9 0 ) places these sociological attri-
consequences for them. They know, for example, butes under the rubric of "animating myths"
that ideologically motivated deans exercise that identify and sustain research communities.
arbitrary p o w e r to monetarily punish them for As we have already seen, the invention of
the research that they do. They, like Socrates, knowledge is conditioned by an author's desire
"value" the scholarly life as a calling; not as a to respond to the particularities of a research
job, and they k n o w that the price that they pay community (an audience). But these particu-
for responding to that calling is high indeed. larities also intervene to influence the shape
Romantic and archaic as that might sound, we and character of justification. They are of
believe it ardently, from experience. rhetorical relevance to the extent that they are
But it would be a mistake to think that con- influences over the course of scholarly argu-
trasting the Socratic ethos with the economism ment. We discuss, in an all too brief way, a few
of Watts and Zimmerman sets up some kind of of the positive and the negative consequences
d i c h o t o m y such that researchers could be of them.
classified on one side or the other. Each of us Positively, the social character of research
hopefully reflects upon the tensions between communities adds efficiency to accounting
the necessary economism of our research and research within particular research communi-
the threats that such economism poses to ties. Because the expanse of possible account-
Socratic ideals. We doubt, for example, that ing knowledges is great, it is impossible for any
positive theorists would lie about their data, knowledge claim to defend itself against all of
even if they knew that they could get away with the available inventory of arguments that could
it. We are also suspicious of those w h o might be made against it. Members of particular
claim that their research is strongly indepen- research communities know themselves and
dent of their economic self-interests. their fellow citizens as having already com-
The problem with a position like Watts and m i r e d to particular empirical perspectives on
Zimmerman's is not that it is without truth- accounting, particular value judgments about
value; rather, it is that they take an emotivistic both accounting and accounting research, par-
posture on other people. Emotivism is a claim ticular (and often quite specialized) languages
to k n o w other people and w h y they do what c o m m o n to them but not necessarily to others,
they do better than they know themselves (see and a c o m m o n body of canonical texts that
Booth, 1974; MacIntyre, 1984, for discussion of form the background knowledge for their
the moral arrogance of emotivistic positions). If community but not for others. The upshot is a
some researchers desire to discuss their o w n c o m m o n social identity among members, an
motives for being "scholars" as "cash equiva- identity that lets them argue only those points
lents", they can certainly refrain from attribut- that are immediately relevant to them as an
ing those motives to the rest of us. While intellectual community confronting a particular
e c o n o m i c consequences are one aspect of knowledge claim. What such arguments lose in
reflection u p o n research practice, they at best generalizability, they gain in particularity,
provide a partial and limited view of the reflec- nuance, and subtlety. A corollary to this within-
tive activity of deciding u p o n a course and direc- group point about rhetorical efficiency is that it
tion for one's research. The e c o n o m y of research makes it possible for many different groups to
524 c E ARRINGTONand W SCHWEIKER
w o r k at p r o d u c i n g m a n y different k i n d s o f o f t h e s e issues in t h e c o n t e x t o f a c c o u n t i n g
accounting knowledges simply because each research, but, o n t h e whole, a c c o u n t i n g r e s e a r c h
g r o u p c o n c e r n s itself w i t h a b o u n d e d a n d has b e e n r e m a r k a b l y i m m u n e f r o m r e f l e c t i o n
p a r t i a l c o n t e x t o f justification. As a result, o n t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n s o f its p r a c t i c e .
a c c o u n t i n g , as a s u b j e c t m a t t e r , at least in F o r t h e s e a n d o t h e r reasons, w e h a v e o u r
t h e o r y gets t h e s o r t o f p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f q u i t e suspicions about those who would promote a
different s c h o l a r l y d i s c o u r s e s that its e m p i r i - " m a r k e t " for a c c o u n t i n g r e s e a r c h as an i n d e x o f
cal r i c h n e s s d e s e r v e s , t h o u g h in p r a c t i c e t h e "quality" all t h e w h i l e f o r g o i n g i n q u i r y i n t o t h e
hegemony of the "mainstream" impedes such s o c i o l o g i c a l s h a p e a n d c h a r a c t e r o f that osten-
proliferation. sible "market".
M o r e negatively, o r at least q u e s t i o n a b l y ,
social f o r c e s w i t h i n r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t i e s c a n The justification o f knowledge: a n o r m a t i v e
c o n s t r a i n p o s s i b i l i t i e s for a r g u m e n t , i n n o v a t i o n , view
a n d e v e n action. Scientific c o m m u n i t i e s are T h e e c o n o m i c and social factors t h a t w e
p a r t i c u l a r y v u l n e r a b l e to b u r e a u c r a c i e s , to discuss, as w e l l as m a n y o t h e r s that w e h a v e n o t
t e x t s that are p l a c e d b e y o n d t h e p a l e o f a d d r e s s e d , a r e i m p o r t a n t to r h e t o r i c i n a s m u c h
criticism, to r e v i e w p r o c e s s e s t h a t a r e n o t as as t h e y influence a r g u m e n t a t i v e p r a c t i c e w h i c h ,
" b l i n d " as t h e y s e e m , t o institutional i d e o l o g i e s in turn, d e t e r m i n e s w h a t c o u n t s as a c c o u n t i n g
t h a t a r e i n f l u e n c e d b y things o t h e r t h a n t h e k n o w l e d g e That r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e socio-
quality o f r e s e a r c h c o n t r i b u t i o n s , a n d t o activi- economic aspects of scholarly argument and
ties o u t s i d e o f t h e s c h o l a r l y c o m m u n i t y that k n o w l e d g e raises an i n t e r e s t i n g , critical ques-
influence t h e r e s e a r c h a g e n d a ( s e e B r o a d & t i o n for scholars. If t h e telos o f s c h o l a r s h i p is to
W a d e , 1982; Brym, 1980; Ashcraft, 1977; Crane, p r o d u c e t h e best k n o w l e d g e p o s s i b l e , t h e n c a n
1972; M c G e e & Lyne, 1987; O v e r i n g t o n , 1977). t h e s e e c o n o m i c a n d social f o r c e s w h i c h are
T h e r e is a p e r s i s t e n t , a l m o s t m e d i e v a l c o n s e r - p r e s e n t to r e s e a r c h i m p e d e t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f
vatism at w o r k in scientific c o m m u n i t i e s . "[A] that telos? In short, s h o u l d w e reflect u p o n a n d
n e w scientific truth", w r i t e s Max Planck, " d o e s exercise vigilance toward that ancient proble-
n o t t r i u m p h b y c o n v i n c i n g its o p p o n e n t s a n d matic -- securing knowledge from the patholo-
m a k i n g t h e m s e e t h e light, b u t r a t h e r b e c a u s e gies o f p o w e r ? W e certainly, in a N i e t z s c h e a n
its o p p o n e n t s e v e n t u a l l y die, a n d a n e w genera- key, d o n o t h a v e to a n s w e r "yes" to this
t i o n g r o w s u p t h a t is familiar w i t h it" ( 1 9 4 9 , pp. q u e s t i o n . W e c a n s i m p l y s e t t l e for k n o w l e d g e
3 3 - 3 4 ) . Ph.D. s t u d e n t s q u i c k l y l e a r n that it is a s p o w e r , refusing t h e o b l i g a t i o n to reflect
less i m p o r t a n t t o d e v e l o p n e w ideas t h a n it is to upon the ethical comportments of scholarly
" i n c u l c a t e t h e n o r m s , traditions, a n d beliefs o f a r g u m e n t . In that key, w e w o u l d s i m p l y a c c e p t
t h o s e m a s t e r s to w h o m o n e is a p p r e n t i c e d " an e x t a n t " m a r k e t " for k n o w l e d g e w i t h o u t
( O v e r i n g t o n , 1977, p. 147). 7 W e c a n n o t discuss reflection upon the structural and political
the b r e a d t h o f issues that s u r r o u n d the sociology c o n d i t i o n s that a r e d e s c r i p t i v e o f that market.
o f k n o w l e d g e here. W h i t l e y ( 1 9 8 6 ) , W i l l i a m s But o n t h e o t h e r hand, if w e d o a n s w e r yes,
( 1 9 8 5 ) , a n d Lavoie ( 1 9 8 7 ) have p r o b e d s o m e t h e n it is i m p o r t a n t t o a v o i d t h e i d e a l i s m o f
7 While the role of the educator as an intellectual mentor lS certainly important, there is a delicate balance between
mentormg, sttthng creativtty, and serving as an intellectual censor Kanney (forthcommg), for example, suggests that Ph D
students stay away from interesting but "risky" studies Why~ What makes them risky, and why should some calculattve
"rtsk factor" override intellectual rtchness~ Need we examine the soctological causes that make "risk" override intellectual
richness m a view hke Kinney's; Could such rtsk have something to do with challenging orthodoxy, wtth challenging the
"mainstream" of which Kanney is himself so much a part~ What are, for example, the conditions that would make a
dissertation toptc "unacceptable"~ Should that "risk" perhaps be borne by the professoriate /f the option ts, put stmply,
repression of the pursuit of good tdeas~
RHETORIC OF ACCOUNTING 525
SThts ts a paraphrase taken from the work of Alexy (1978, pp 40--41), as translated m Whtte (1988, p 56)
9 Indeed, Habermas is himself a critac of rhetortc. But that crlttctsm IS based upon certain aspects of rhetoric that we have
excluded from this essay in order to focus upon argument Construing rhetortc as argument, it is possible to read Hahermas
as a theorist of rhetortc, a pomt that Stmons (1990) correctly notes
526 c E A1LRINGTONand W SCHWEIKER
neo-Kantian set of deontological rules upon dis- aspects of accounting research methodology
course and the attempt to ground social choice and situate rhetoric in relation to them.
in a perhaps overly intellectualized regard for The philosophy of science is frequently
communicative transparency, a transparency evoked in methodological discussion both
that perhaps pays insuflficient attention to the inside and outside of accounting. Philosophers
material manifestations of p o w e r and coercion of science, like other scholars, write texts that
in public life. But for our purposes, Habermas' can be useful to accounting researchers trying
model of Ideal Speech seems a useful schema to understand methodology. But it is somewhat
for reflection upon the intersubjective relations remarkable that philosophers of science are so
b e t w e e n accounting researchers. Ideal Speech frequently invoked as the "thought police"
is not a practical mandate; it is a quasi- in methodological discussion in accounting.
transcendental medium for moral reflection Christenson's ( 1 9 8 3 ) use of Popper is exemp-
upon h o w w e o u g h t to treat each other in lary. Such appeals to authority are disturbing
communicating with respect to accounting inasmuch as the philosophy of science is itself a
knowledge and its production. discipline where disagreement about what
science is and what it is not, h o w science is or
ought to be produced, and h o w science fits
SOME IMPLICATIONS OF A RHETORIC OF within the broader concerns of intellectual
ACCOUNTING RESEARCH IN RELATION practice is rampant. There is no consensual
TO OTHER ASPECTS OF RESEARCH "philosophy" of science, particularly in a post-
PRACTICE empiricist, post-positivist age like ours. The
upshot of this diversity is that an accounting
The intention of this essay is to announce the methodologist of any persuasion can find an
relevance of rhetoric to accounting research "authority" within the philosophy of science to
practice; and, hopefully, w e have suggested sustain whatever view he or she wishes to take,
numerous ways in which the discursive relation including the view that the distinction between
between a researcher and an audience can add "science" and "non-science" lacks point (see
to methodological understanding and debate Feyerabend, 1978; Rorty, 1979). There seems
among accounting researchers. We are in no to be a sort of "fishing for authority" as
sense suggesting that rhetoric can substitute for accounting researchers appeal to the philosophy
the substantive methods and perspectives on of science, a practice that sociologists of science
accounting that inform various research com- have called "ontological gerrymandering"
munities. What rhetoric can do is twofold. First, making one "science" problematic by making
it can claim a ubiquity that other methodo- some other unproblematic. It is evident in
logical c o m p o n e n t s of research do not have, accounting studies like Christenson (1983),
inasmuch as every accounting research com- Chua (1986), and Abdel-Khalik & Ajinkya
munity depends u p o n argument and debate in (1979), all studies which take different views
order to p r o d u c e knowledge, irrespective of on science and use those views as criteria to
the methodological particularities of that com- reject others because they are (per such
munity. A critical focus upon the c o n d u c t of criteria) not "science". From our perspective, it
argument thus has some accurate claim to seems that if philosophers of science cannot even
generalizability across research communities. agree on minimal implicatures for what science is
Second, rhetoric can take its place alongside and what it is not, h o w science ought to be
other methodological concepts such that a conducted, and h o w it fits within the broader
fuller, richer sense of accounting research intellectual enterprise, then they are hardly in a
practices comes into view. It is this latter place position to "police" the rest of us. Gerrymandering
of rhetoric that w e briefly discuss in this section rhetorical authority from them (as earlier
of the essay as w e isolate some non-rhetorical versions of this essay did) is at best suspicious.
528 c E ARRINGTONand W SCHWEIKER
b u t n o t o t h e r s for e x a m p l e . It is a "self-refuting" w o m e n . It is w h a t h a p p e n e d w h e n w h i t e s
v i e w b e c a u s e it is itself a c o m p a r i s o n o f s t a r t e d t o listen to p e o p l e o f c o l o r in t h e 1960s.
different beliefs, a c o m p a r i s o n that t r e a t s t h e m It is w h a t c a n h a p p e n w h e n positivists, her-
as u n i f o r m l y valuable. (As an analogy, c o n s i d e r m e n e u t s , m a t h e m a t i c i a n s , Marxists, n e w classi-
h o w an e c o n o m i s t ' s p r o h i b i t i o n o n i n t e r p e r - cal e c o n o m i s t s , sociologists, c r i t i c a l theorists,
sonal utility c o m p a r i s o n s is itself an i n t e r p e r - n o r m a t i v e theorists, a n d a p p l i e d a c c o u n t i n g
sonal utility c o m p a r i s o n . ) T h e s e c o n d v i e w is researchers read each other's work and bring
' ~ ¢ r o n g - h e a d e d " b e c a u s e different p r o c e d u r e s different p e r s p e c t i v e s to b e a r u p o n w h a t re-
for "justification" a r e t h e m s e l v e s c a n d i d a t e s for m a i n s o t h e r w i s e s t r i c t l y "tribal" d i s c o u r s e . That
evaluation. H a b e r m a s , for e x a m p l e , h e l p s us to is t h e m e d i a o f l e a r n i n g , o f b e i n g e x p o s e d to
s e e h o w different m o d e s o f a r g u m e n t a t i v e a n d p e r h a p s p e r s u a d e d b y t h e beliefs a n d
p r a c t i c e - - different p r o c e d u r e s o f justification o p i n i o n s o f t h o s e u n l i k e ourselves. It r e q u i r e s
c a n b e m o r a l l y evaluated. W e relativists w h a t R o r t y ( 1 9 8 7 ) calls " a b n o r m a l d i s c o u r s e "
b o t h p r e f e r a n d d e f e n d t h e i d e a that, for ( a k i n to K u h n ' s " a b n o r m a l s c i e n c e " ) m listen-
e x a m p l e , civil a r g u m e n t is a b e t t e r w a y o f ing to t h o s e w h o first a p p e a r o d d , e c c e n t r i c ,
justifying k n o w l e d g e ( o r " t r u t h " ) than vio- different, w h o s p e a k different languages:
lence, shouting, c o e r c i v e p o w e r , etc. T h e t h i r d
a n d c o r r e c t v i e w o f r e l a t i v i s m h o l d s that t h e r e To say that we must be ethnocentric may sound
is n o t h i n g o u t s i d e o f a r g u m e n t a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s suspictous, but this will only happen if we identify
w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y that ethnocentrism with pig-headed refusal to talk to
c a n p o s s i b l y justify k n o w l e d g e m t h e r e is n o representaUves of other communities In my sense of
ethnocentrism, to be ethnocentric is simply to work by
p a r t i c u l a r language, n o e x a n t e rules o f m e t h o d , our own lights The defense of ethnocentrism ts simply
n o singular "logic" to w h i c h " t r u t h " o r " k n o w - that there are no other hghts to work by Beliefs
ledge" universally corresponds. suggested by another mdtvidual or another culture must
It s e e m s t o us that t h e partial, p a r o c h i a l , a n d be tested by tt-ymg to weave them together with beliefs
e t h n o c e n t r i c v i e w is p r e f e r a b l e to t h e alterna- whtch we already have We can so test them, because
everything which we can identify as a human being or as
tive, t h e b e l i e f that s o m e r e s e a r c h e r s have a a culture will be somethmg which shares an enormous
u n i v e r s a l l y better, m o r e " t r u t h - i n d u c i n g " , m o r e number of behefs with us. (If it did not, we would
"scientific" m o d e o f p r o d u c i n g a c c o u n t i n g stmply not be able to recogmze that it was speaking a
k n o w l e d g e . But an e t h n o c e n t r i c i t y like o u r s is language, and thus that tt had any behefs at all ) (p 43).
n o t w i t h o u t p r o b l e m s . M o s t simply, it c a n l e a d
to an insularity s u c h that r e s e a r c h e r s isolate To c o n c l u d e , it is c e r t a i n l y w o r t h c o n s i d e r -
t h e m s e l v e s w i t h i n small r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t i e s , ing t h e p o s s i b i l i t y that t h e r e is n o t h i n g b u t t h e
n o l o n g e r d e s i r o u s o f s p e a k i n g w i t h , w r i t i n g to, fragile, political, a n d m o r a l l y v u l n e r a b l e a c t i v i t y
o r arguing w i t h m e m b e r s o f o t h e r communities. o f discourse w i t h o t h e r s that justifies and g r o u n d s
T r u l y h e r o i c efforts surface w h e n different t h e k n o w l e d g e that a c c o u n t i n g r e s e a r c h e r s
r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t i e s ( d i f f e r e n t t r i b e s to p u s h p r o d u c e . It is c e r t a i n l y w o r t h c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t
t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l m e t a p h o r s ) try t o inter- t h e s e a r c h for a sure-fire m e t h o d o f p r o d u c i n g
pret, understand, problematize, and critique the k n o w l e d g e , o r t h e s e a r c h for a h i e r a r c h y t h a t
k n o w l e d g e t h a t e a c h has just finished c o n s t i t u t - would subordinate some modes of knowledge
ing. That is a p r o c e s s n o t u n l i k e t h e p r o g r e s s p r o d u c t i o n (unscientific?) to o t h e r s (scientific?),
m a d e w h e n c o l o n i a l i s t - m i n d e d E n g l i s h m e n de- o r t h e s e a r c h for s o m e " o b j e c t i v e " p o s t u r e that
c i d e d t o listen t o t h e natives, to t h o s e like would divorce our knowledge from both our
Gandhi, to those who persuaded them that the s u b j e c t i v i t y a n d o u r i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y a r e all
w o r l d a n d k n o w l e d g e a b o u t it d i d n o t c o r r e - s e a r c h e s that w e w o u l d b e b e t t e r off a b a n d o n -
s p o n d t o t h e A n g l i c a n u n i v e r s a l i t y that t h e y ing. It m i g h t b e n i c e if w e h a d f o u n d s u c h
s o u g h t t o a t t r i b u t e t o it. T h a t is w h a t h a p p e n s in g r o u n d s for c e r t i t u d e in k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c t i o n ,
feminist t h e o r y w h e n m e n start to listen to b u t t h e fact is w e h a v e n ' t ( s e e Rorty, 1979).
RHETORIC OF ACCOUNTING 531
P e r h a p s all t h a t w e h a v e g o t is a r g u m e n t w i t h a b o u t t h e s o c i o l o g y o f a c c o u n t i n g r e s e a r c h - - it
e a c h o t h e r . T h a t m a y n o t b e a b a d state o f takes p l a c e in hallways, c o n f e r e n c e h o t e l lobbies,
affairs. After all, a c c o u n t i n g k n o w l e d g e o u g h t to o v e r t h e t e l e p h o n e , a n d o v e r b e e r . It o u g h t to
sink o r s w i m b a s e d u p o n w h a t it c a n c o n t r i b u t e b e d i s c u s s e d o u t in t h e o p e n - - in t h e
to t h e m o r a l q u a l i t y o f h u m a n lives as s u c h lives literature. If o t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s h a v e t h e m a t u r i t y
are i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e p r a c t i c e o f a c c o u n t i n g . to d o t h a t ( a n d t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s h a v e d o n e a
The question of the moral desirability of g r e a t d e a l o f that), t h e n a c c o u n t i n g c a n as well.
a c c o u n t i n g is a q u e s t i o n b e s t a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h W e h a v e p r o v i d e d s o m e r e f e r e n c e s that c a n
free, o p e n , a n d u n c o e r c e d a r g u m e n t . Scholars, s e r v e as m o d e l s ( s e e p a r t i c u l a r l y B o u r d i e u ,
like citizens, a r e a c c o u n t a b l e for t h e " r h e t o r i c s " 1988; M c G e e & Lyne, 1987; B r o a d & W a d e ,
that t h e y d e p l o y in t h e c o u r s e o f such arguments. 1982; Crane, 1972; O v e r i n g t o n , 1977). Such
A m a j o r w e a k n e s s o f this essay, a w e a k n e s s w o r k is i m p o r t a n t to a d v a n c e t h e q u a l i t y o f
justified b y t h e c o n s t r a i n t s i m p o s e d o n a single a c c o u n t i n g k n o w l e d g e since, as w e have already
essay, is t h a t w e h a v e f o c u s e d p r i m a r i l y u p o n seen, t h e k n o w l e d g e that a r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y
r h e t o r i c ' s p l a c e in a n s w e r i n g w h a t h a v e tradi- p r o d u c e s is o n l y as g o o d as t h e a r g u m e n t s t h a t
t i o n a l l y b e e n t h o u g h t o f as e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l t h e y e n g a g e in. T h o s e a r g u m e n t s a r e v u l n e r a b l e
q u e s t i o n s , q u e s t i o n s a b o u t h o w k n o w l e d g e is to t h e f o r c e s o f c o e r c i o n , p o w e r , institutions,
justified as knowledge. W e have n o t d o n e justice a n d ideologies. T h e y o u g h t to b e " u n f o r c e d "
to an e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t area: t h e s o c i o l o g y o f a r g u m e n t s ; t h e y usually a r e not. That is an issue
accounting knowledge and rhetoric's relation for f u t u r e essays, essays w h i c h m a y find it
to it. D e s p i t e its p r o m i n e n c e in t h e b r o a d e r a t t r a c t i v e to take a critical p e r s p e c t i v e o n t h e
social s c i e n c e s , t h e r e is v e r y little w o r k o n t h e s u b t e x t o f t h i s essay: t h e stifling h e g e m o n y o f
sociology of accounting research. Williams " m a i n s t r e a m " a c c o u n t i n g r e s e a r c h w i t h its
( 1 9 8 5 ) a n d W h i t l e y ( 1 9 8 6 ) a r e t h e only t w o p o s i t i v i s t i c p r e t e n s i o n s , e m o t i v i s t i c m o r a l arro-
s t u d i e s t h a t c o m e i m m e d i a t e l y to mind. But gance, e c o n o m i s t i c serf-understandings, a n d
t h e r e is a g r e a t d e a l o f "unofficial r h e t o r i c " i n d i f f e r e n c e to t h e a r g u m e n t s o f others.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bourdteu, P., Homo Academzcus, Colher, P (transl) (Stanford, CA. Stanford Umverstty Press, 1988)
Broad, W. & Wade, N, Betrayers o f the Truth. Fraud and Deceit in the Halls o f Science (New York Stmon
& Schuster, 1982)
Brown, R., Society as Text (Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press, 1987)
Brym, R. J., Intellectuals and Politics (New York Allen & Unwin, 1980)
Burchell, S., Clubb, C. & Hopwood, A., Accounting in its Social Context: Towards a History of Value Added
m the Umted Kmgdom, Accounting Organizations and Society (1985) pp 381-413
Burke, K., Rhetoric o f Motives (Berkeley, CA Umverstty of Calfforma Press, 1969)
Chnstenson, C., The Methodology of Positive Accounting, The Accounting Review (January 1983)
pp. 1-22.
Chua, W.-F., Radical Developments m Accounting Thought, The Accounting Review (1986) pp 601--632
Crane, D, Invisible Colleges (Chicago, IL Umversity of Chicago Press, 1972)
Dmsmg, P., Reason in Society: Five Types o f Decisions and Thetr Social Conditions (Westport, CT-
Greenwood, 1962)
Feyerabend, P, AgatnstMethod (London. Verso, 1978)
Gadamer, H.-G, Reason in the Age o f Science, Lawrence, F (transl) (Cambridge, MA MIT Press, 1981 )
Garfinkel, H, Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967)
Geertz, C, Works and Lives the Anthropologist as Author (Palo Mto, CA: Stanford Umverslty Press,
1988)
Habermas, J., Reply to My CrlttCS, in Thompson, J. & Held, D (eds), Habermas Critical Debates
(Cambridge, MA- MIT Press, 1982)
Habermas, J, The Theory o f Commumcative Actiort Volume I, Reason and the Rationalization o f
Society, McCarthy, T. (transl.) (Boston, MA Beacon Press, 1984)
Habermas, J., The Philosophical Discourse o f Modernity, Lawrence, F (transl) (Cambridge, MA M1T
Press, 1987a)
Habermas, J, The Theory o f Communicative Action Volume 11, Lifeworld and System. a Critique o f
Functtonalist Reason, McCarthy, T. (transl) (Boston, MA Beacon Press, 1987b)
Hines, R, Financial Accountmg m Commumcatmg Realtty, We Construct Reahty, Accounting
Organizations and Society (1988) pp 251-262
Hopwood, A, Accountmg and the Pursuit of Social Interests, tn Chua, W.-F, Lowe, E A & Puxty, A G
( eds ), Critzcal Perspectives tn Management Control (London. Macmillan, 1989)
Kinney, W, Emptrlcal Accounting Research Destgn for Ph D Students, The Accountmg Review (April
1986) pp 338-350
Kinney, W, Issues m Accounting Research Design Educatton, Critical Perspectives On Accounting
(forthcoming)
Kuhn, T., The Structure o f Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edn (Chicago. Umverstty of Chicago Press, 1970)
Latour, B & Woolgar, S., Laboratory Life. the Social Construction o f Scientific Facts (Beverley Hills, CA
Sage, 1979)
Lavole, D, The Accounting of interpretations and the Interpretation of Accounts the Commumcattve
Function of"The Language of Busmess", Accounting OrganizationsandSociety(19B7)pp 579---604
Left, M, Modern Sophistic and the Umty of Rhetoric, in Nelson, J, Megill, A & McCloskey, D (eds), The
Rhetoric o f the Human Sciences (Madison, WI University of Wisconsm Press, 1987)
Lyne, J., Bio-Rhetortcs Moralizing the Life Sciences, m Simons, H. (ed.), The Rhetorical Turn: Invention
and Persuasion in the Conduct o f lnquiry (Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1990)
MacIntyre, A., After Virtue (South Bend, IN Notre Dame Untverstty Press, 1984)
McCarthy, T., The Crttical Theory ofJurgen Habermas (Cambrtdge, MA. MIT Press, 1979)
McCloskey, D, The Rhetoric o f Economics (Madkson, WI University of WlSconsm Press, 1985)
McGee, M C. & Lyne, J, What are Nice Folks like You Doing m a Place ltke This~ Some Entailments of
Treating Knowledge Clatms Rhetorically, in Nelson, J., Megill, A. & McCloskey, D. (eds), The Rhetoric
o f the Human Sciences (Madison, WI Unlverstty of Wisconsin Press, 1987)
Man, P de, The Resistance to Theory (Mmneapohs, MN Uruversity of Minnesota Press, 1986)
Morgan, G, Accountmg as Reahty Construction. Towards a New Epistemology for Accounting Practice,
Accounting Organizations and Society (1988) pp. 477-486.
Nelson, J, Political Foundattons for the Rhetortc of inquiry, m Stmons, H ( e d ) , The Rhetorical Turn:
Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct o f lnquiry (Chicago: Universtty of Chicago Press, 1990)
Nelson, J., Megill, A. & McCloskey, D (eds), The Rhetoric o f the Human Sciences (Madison, WI-
Universtty of Wisconsin Press, 1987).
RHETORIC OF ACCOUNTING 533