Accounting, Organizations and Society

Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13, No.5, pp. 477-485, 198B.
Printed in Great Britain
0361-3682/88 $3.00+.00
Pergamon Press pic
ACCOUNTING AS REALITY CONSTRUCTION:
TOWARDS A NEW EPISTEMOLOGY FOR ACCOUNTING PRACTICE*
GARETH MORGAN
York University, Toronto
Abstract
Accountants often see themselves as objective appraisers of reality,,representing reality “as is”, This paper
takes a different view, arguing that accountants typically construct reality in limited and one-sided ways. It
shows that the idea of objectivity in accounting is largely a myth, and one which stands in the way of
interesting future developments in the discipline, The paper develops an alternative perspective on the
nJture of the accounting process, building on insights regarding the interpretive and metaphorical nature
of accounting, and arguing that accounting should be approached as a form of “dialogue” through which
accountants can construct, “read” and probe situations in a variety of ways.
I’d like you to visualize an Escher lithograph.
Perhaps it isHand With Reflecting Globe, which
features Escher looking at himselfin a crystal ball
(Fig. 1). The artist has created an image of himself looking at himself which binds the viewer
into the picture as if he or she were actually
standing in Escher’s shoes.
In this lithograph the artist is making a fundamental epistemological point. It is that he as an
artist, and we as everyday observers and participants in life, are active producers ofwhat we
see and experience. In a broad sense, all knowledge is a matter of perspective. Just as an artist
makes a limited representation of the “reality”
captured on his or her canvas, the knowledge
generated by the natural scientist, by the social
scientist, or by the layperson in the course of
everyday experience, is always a limited, partial
knowledge. While this knowledge usually “says
something”, it also leaves a great deal unsaid.
And what is said only rings true from the
standpoint of a limited view: just as the laws of
physics only apply within clearly defined
parameters. I
I am evoking this imagery as a basis for the argument that follows, since I want to focus on the
problems faced by accountants in representing
the reality ofthe situations they wish to “account
for”. Accountants often see themselves as engaged in an objective, value-free, technical enterprise, representing reality “as is”. But in fact,
they are subjective “constructors ofreality”: presenting and representing the situations in limited and one-sided ways. They are not just
technicians practising a technical craft. They are
part of a much broader process of reality construction, producing partial and rather onesided views of reality, exactly as an artist is obliged to produce a partial view of the reality he
or she wishes to represent.
By appreciating and exploring this dimension
of the accounting process, accountants have a
means of developing a new epistemology of accounting that will emphasize the interpretive as
opposed to the supposedly “objective” aspects
of the discipline, perhaps in a way that will help
broaden and deepen the accountants’ contributions to economic and social life.
“Based on an invited address to the Tenth Congress of the European Accounting Association, London, 25 March 1987. I am
indebted to Stan DaviS and Graham Morgan for their help in some of the research leading to this paper.
1 I have explored this theme at great length in Morgan (1983), showing how different approaches to social research capture
inherently limited aspects of the situations to which they are applied.
477
478 GARETH MORGAN
Fig. 1. Hand with reflecting globe: self-portrait by M. C. Escher (lithograph, 1935).
Reprinted by permission ofHaags Gemeentemuseum, The Hague, courtesy ofVopal Gallery, San Francisco and NewYork City, and by permission of the heirs of M. C. Escher, c/o Cordon Arts-Daarn, Holland.
THE METAPHORICAL NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
Ifone wishes to get a fresh view of one’s discipline, it is often a good idea to try and see it
from the outside. So let’s look beyond our immediate concerns as accountants and examine
some recent developments in the field oforganization theory, where the problems of perspective and interpretation parallel those faced in
accounting and in the production of knowledge
generally.
ACCOUNTING AS REALITY CONSTRUCTION 479
Elsewhere (Morgan, 1980, 1986), I have
suggested that organization theory is a
metaphorical enterprise, and that its history is
really a story of broadening metaphorical development. For example, early theories of organization built on the image that organizations
are machines. Interest focussed on understanding relations between structure, technology,
goals and efficiency, on the premise that orfPnizations can be rationally designed as structures
of clearly defined parts, coordinated and controlled in pursuit of pre-specified goals. This
created an internally oriented view of organizations that made efficient organization a question
of good bureaucratic design. The theory had
strengths, but also limitations requiring new
metaphorical perspectives to put them aright.
Hence, mechanistic theorizing was quickly
supplemented by ideas generated through organic imagery focussing attention on the flexible
and adaptive properties of organisms. By developing the idea that organizations are more
like organisms than machines, theorists began to
emphasize that an organization’s “environment”
was all important, and that the main task facing
organizations was that of survival. Like organisms, organizations became viewed as open
systems with sets of “needs” that must be satisfied. Looking towards the external environment,
it was observed that just as polar bears fare well
in cold climates, and camels in deserts, different
social, technical and economic environments
fuvour different forms of organization. A contingency theory of organization developed, emphasiZing the importance ofachieving a good fit
between organization and environment, noting
that while bureaucracies are able to survive
quite well in stable environments, under conditions ofturbulence more organic forms are often
more appropriate. In the process, modified
forms of Darwinism began to replace the principles of engineering and mechanism as the
primary source ofinspiration for ideas on organization and management.
Since the late 1970s other metaphors have
also exerted an increasing influence on organization theory. For example, much credence is now
given to the idea that organizations are cultures:
mini-societies with their own systems of ideology, myth, ritual, ceremony and other forms of
symbolism. Under the influence of this
metaphor, corporate culture is being viewed as
the key fuctor influencing the success of organizations, and managers, particularly those at a
senior level, are encouraged to develop skills in
shaping the core values and beliefs that are to
guide organizational practice. As witnessed by
the success ofbooks like In Search ofExcellence
(Peters & Waterman, 1982), the metaphor has
captured the thinking of many practising managers in a major way and, at least in North
America, is providing the basis for a new
orthodoxy.
Other metaphors have also been explored to
create important insights on the politics of organization, on the cybernetic properties ofdecision-making, on the ugly features associated
with exploitation and domination, and so on.
This short review is intended to be no more
than illustrative. The point is that our understanding of organization is based on the use of
metaphors which generate important insights
that always have clearly defined limitations. Different metaphors grasp and highlight different
aspects oforganization but, in the process, tend
to hide or distort others. A full understanding of
organization thus requires that we find ways of
integrating the many and often paradOXical inSights that our theories and explanations create.
My own solution to the problem has been to
argue that this can be achieved by explicitly
recognizing that organizations are many things
at once (Morgan, 1986). They are enterprises
that collectively have to engage in certain activities to survive. They provide the scene for individual careerism and interpersonal politics.
They are often reduced to battlegrounds between rival factions. They are arenas where
people construct meaning and engage in all
kinds of symbolically significant activities. And
so on. The way we understand these many dimensions, and judge their significance is a matter ofperspective, shaped by all kinds ofmotivations and intentions. Ifwe are charged with managing an organization we may find one perspective more helpful than another. If our purpose is
480 GARETH MORGAN
to critique or to revolutionize existing social relations, we are more likely to favour and adopt
yet another. Like artists, we face the problem
that whatever perspective we choose to adopt,
others are squeezed from view.
An understanding of the metaphorical nature
of knowledge thus leads to a basic problem of
epistemology. It leads us to recognize that
human agency and the limitations imposed by
perspective are fundamental in the generation of
knowledge, and that our knowledge always falls
short in representing the full texture of reality.
Our lot as human beings dealing with a complex,
multi-dimensional and paradoxical world, is that
our knowledge can do no more than create a
weak and rather urn-dimensional representation
of that world. Though achievements in technology may convince us that we are much more
knowledgeable than we actually are – since the
ability to manipulate with predictable results is
not a true measure ofknowledge or understanding -‘our knowledge always falls short of the
ideal state which philosophers from Plato to
Hegel have encouraged us to achieve.
ACCOUNTING AS A METAPHORICAL
ENTERPRISE
Itmay seem that our discussion has brought us
a long way from the topic of accounting. But we
are right at its heart because accounting is ultimately concerned with the problems of representation and “accounting for”. like organization theorists, accountants ultimately have to
represent complex multi-dimensional realities
through metaphorical constructs that are always
limited and incomplete.
Accounting practice is framed by an overarching metaphor encouraging a numerical view
of reality. Just as early organization theorists attempted to represent organizations through
bureaucratic principles deriving from the image
that organizations are machines, accountants try
to represent organizations and their activities in
terms of numbers. This is metaphorical. And like
all use of metaphor, it gives but a partial and incomplete representation of the reality to which
the numbers relate. The numerical view highlights those aspects of organizational reality that
are quantifiable and built into the accounting
framework (e.g. flows of costs, revenues and
other values), but ignores those aspects of organizational reality that are not quantifiable in
this way. Just as we might attempt to rate the
quality oflast night’s dinner on a scale of 1-10,
and in giving it “a 9” capture that it was indeed a
very good meal, the accountant’s numerical
form of representation provides a very “thin”
and limited characterization. It leaves much of
the quality and over-all experience of the meal
out of account. The metaphor “it was a 9” remains silent on so many things.
Weare addressing here one ofthe major problems in accounting practice. Accountants have
long recognized the limitations of numerical
modes of representation, but have been
hamstrung in their attempts to overcome them
because the numerical view has been equated
with an objective view. The idea that accountants represent reality “as is” through the means
of numbers that are objective and value free, has
clouded the much more important inSight that
accountants are always engaged in interpreting
a complex reality, partially, and in a way that is
heavily weighted in favour of what the accountant is able to measure and chooses to measure,
through the particular schemes ofaccounting to
be adopted. 2
But that is by no means the end of the matter,
because within the framework of a numerical
view of reality, accounting theory and accounting” practice have been shaped by other
metaphors which offer competing views as to
2 The idea ofobjectivity and the choice ofaccounting measures has, ofcourse, also been sustained by the fact that accounting
is designed to serve certain interests. There is an important political dimension to reality construction among accountants
that must always be examined in providing explanations of the history of the profession. My aim in this article is to focus on
epistemological aspects of the problem; i.e. my paper is framed and limited by the metaphor “accounting as reality construction”, rather than “accounting as power”, “accounting as domination”, etc.
ACCOUNTING AS REALITY CONSTRUCTION 481
how numerical reality should be represented
and understood (Davis et al., 1982). Accounting
as a discipline has constructed and changed its
identity over the years, in a manner that provides
a close parallel with that found in organization
theory. Just as organization theory has been developed and enriched by viewing organizations
as machines, organisms, cybernetic brains, cultures, political systems, instruments of domination, and so on, accounting theory has been
shaped and formed by metaphorical interpretations that encourage accountants to constrpct
and interpret the significance and merit of
different accounting schemes from all kinds of
vantage points.
For example, here is a list ofsome ofthe major
metaphors that have exerted an impact on recent accounting theory:
Accounting as history: the view that accounting is concerned with providing a faithful record of the transactions of an enterprise, and with reporting such transactions in a manner suited to the needs ofusers (e.g. Paton
& littleton, 1940; littleton, 1953).
Accounting as economics: the view that accounting
should try to mirror current economic realities and reo
flect basic economic principles (see, for example, Davis
etal,1982).
Accounting as information: the view that accounting
should form part ofa wider MIS framework (e.g. Prakash
& Rappaport, 1977; Snowball, 1980).
Accounting as a language: the view that accounting pro·
vides concepts and frameworks which structure thought,
conversation, perceptions and decision-making (e.g. Bel·
kaoui, 1978), especially to support capitalism.
Accounting as rhetoric: the view that accounting, and
the debate about different accounting systems, is largely
a question of argument and discourse where various
proponents attempt to convince others ofthe superiority
ofone principle over another (e.g. Arrington, 1987).
Accounting as politics: the view that accounting and ac·
counting systems reflect and support the values and
needs ofspecific interest groups, and that accounting information is constructed and used as a resource in shaping corporate politics, especially in decision-making and
impression management (e.g. Burchell et al, 1980).
Accounting as mythology: the view that accounting systems provide a societal resource to be used in sustaining
myths of rationality, and as a means of justifying,
rationalizing and legitimizing decisions that ultimately
serve other individual and social ends (e.g. Boland,
1982).
Accounting as magic: the view that underneath the veneer of rationality, accounting and the use of accounting
information forms part of a societal “rite” serving the
same functions for modern decision-makers as the entrails of chickens served for old witch doctors (e.g.
Gambling, 1977).
Accounting as disciplined control: the view that one of
the primary functions of accounting is to exercise surveillance by creating “visibility”: just as prisons are often
designed to maximize the visibility and scrutiny of inmates, accounting systems are often designed to increase
the visibility and scrutiny exercised over employees,
even those working in remote locations without direct
forms ofsupervision ( e.g. Burchell et al., 1980).
Accounting as ideology: the view that accounting systems form part of the ideological apparatus that sustains
the ability of a society to produce and reproduce itselfin
accordance with clearly defined principles. (e.g. Merino
& Neimark, 1982; Tinker etal, 1982).
Accounting as domination and exploitation: the view
that accounting provides techniques for the extraction of
wealth in support of elite interest groups, both at the expense of Mother Nature (in terms of natural resources
and the ecological balance of the planet), and of the
people employed in the service of others (e.g. Tinker,
1985).
All these metaphors have been developed to
form competing interpretations regarding the
nature and significance of accounting, and how
accounting principles can or should be developed. Interestingly, they all grasp significant
elements of what accounting is all about, and
often suggest interesting principles for accounting design. However, no one metaphor grasps
the total nature of accounting as a social
phenomenon, for accounting, like other aspects
of social life, is inherently complex, multi-dimensional and paradoxical. The accountant and
accounting theorist stands in exactly the same
relationship to the reality he or she wishes to
represent as does the artist, organization theorist
or any other person wishing to understand some
complex aspect of the world around us. In recognizing this, accountants can move towards a
new epistemology for understanding and con·
ducting their craft.
ACCOUNTING AND THE MYfH OF
OBJECTNIlY
Historically, the belief has developed that accounting is grounded in a quest for objectivity
482 GARETH MORGAN
the economic vitality ofan enterprise, the benefits of a particular investment decision or the operational effectiveness ofa production system, in
limited and rather one-sided ways. But these representations become part of the fabric through
which the situation “accounted for” is then sustained or changed. Accountants interpret reality.
But their interpretations – in the form of statements about general economic vitality, a capital
budget decision, or cost over-run report –
became resources in the ongoing construction
and reconstruction of reality, as these accounting reports are used to shape or rationalize future decisions.
.Four short examples will serve to illustrate
how accountants play an active role in this web
of reality construction, shaping and sustaining
organizational realities through partial ways of
seeing.
ACCOUNTING AS AN INTERPRETIVE ART
Accounting and corporate culture
Accounting systems do more than just
monitor or mirror reality; they also shape reality.
Consider, for example, how the introduction of
rigorous financial controls can reshape the culture and general orientation of an organiZation.
For example, in hospitals introducing systems
that make patients or departments profit or cost
centres, nurses and other staffoften end up as extensions of the new financial systems, recording
and allocating their time and use of materials
much more rigorously than under more traditional systems of management (Davis, 1986). In
the process, the nurses’ relations with patients
on the one hand and doctors on the other,
change, as an orientation to control costs, or
“stay within budget”, intrudes on decisions that
used to be dominated by considerations of
care. The process seems to be particularly
evident in relation to the more qualitative asThe only viable long-term solution to this pects of nursing, especially in nonlife-threatenproblem rests in recognizing and accepting the ing situations. Under the requirement of “meetbasic subjectivity of accounting, and in develop- ipg budget” the whole work orientation ofnursing a code ofpractice that will allow the accoun- ,ing staff can change towards an administrative

tant to recognize that he or she is not an “objec-
tive commentator”, but a person engaged in a
than patient-oriented focus.
Financial controls can make hospitals more

complex web of reality construction. The ac- efficient. But they can also make them less
countant represents complex situations, such as hUmane. Accounting systems grasp and shape
-_/’”
and, by implication, that it is possible for accountants to be objective and to present the reality of
a situation in a “true” manner. Clearly, this is an
impossible ideal, for, as above, accountants are able to do no more than grasp limited
aspects of the reality to which their accounting
schemes relate. Accounting can never be truly
objective, for, as George Berkeley observed in
the seventeenth century, objectivity is always as
much a part of the observer as of the object observed. Accountants are linked to their observations through accounting principles and practices that are ultimately based on metaphors
creating partial and one-sided ways of viewing
the world.
The myth of objectivity disguises the true
nature of accounting and creates many operational problems because, as everypractising accountant knows, it is pretty well impossible to
defend one’s objectivity under close attack from
people who have a detailed knowledge of the
situations to which the accountant’s statements
relate. In actual practice, many people know that
the accountant’s work is based on somewhat arbitrary assumptions and conventions. They
know that the accountant is really in the business of trying to persuade others that his or her
concepts, or latest set offigures, “give a true and
fair view” or have superior insight, when in reality this view, whatever the figures might say, is as
partial as any other. The accountant’s view ofreality often carries more weight than other views,
because of the power relations associated with
the allocation and control of scarce resources.
But this should in no way be seen as due to the
accountant’s “objectivity”.
ACCOUNTING AS REALIlY CONSTRUCTION 483
important aspects ofthe reality ofrunning a hospital, especially the economic and financial aspects, but in the process, they also change the
nature and quality of other aspects.
Accounting and technological change
Most organizations now require that capital
expenditures in new technology be subjected to
some kind of rigorous financial appraisal. These
appraisals might often do an excellent job in determining the financial and economic viability of
a proposal, but leave other aspects, such as tQe
general social and human consequences, and
even the wider strategic impact, unaddressed. As
a result, decision-making is often conducted in a
way that promotes “cost consciousness”, at the
expense ofa broader understanding ofthe implications ofa proposed technological change. The
existence of techniques and data for evaluating
projects in a uni-dimensional way tends to
encourage uni-dimensional decision-making.
Again, we have an example of how accounting
,Practices that grasp an aspect of “the reality” of
(organizational decision-making, can have a disturbing influence on others.
Accounting and economic and socialpolicy
In the 1984-85 coal miners strike in the u.K.
accounting practices and related cost and other
financial data were used to arrive at National
Coal Board (NCB) calculations as to what constitutes an economic coal-mine, with a view to
rationalizing which mines should remain open,
and which should be closed. The calculations
were based on many detailed accounting conventions, on assumptions with regard to the
price of coal, and on assumptions that it was
legitimate to conceptualize and restrict the
economics of pit closure to costs and revenues
directly associated with NCB operations (see
Berry et al., 1985). There were alternatives to
the accounting principles selected to calculate
profitability. The price of coal used to estimate
future revenues assumed social and political decisions that would result in nuclear energy providing the primary source offuture power. Also,
the costs ofunemployment benefits arIsing from
closure of selected mines, which would have
fallen on the British Government rather than
directly on the NCB, were excluded from the
calculations, even though the British Government, the ultimate paymaster for the NCB, ultimately had to foot the bill-whether in the form
ofwages or unemployment benefits.
The point is that the decision regarding what
constitutes an economic pit is underpinned by
many social and political choices, and that the
accounting and economic principles used in
actual decision-making captured but a small aspect ofthe wider socio-political decisions being
faced.
Accounting and the “shareholder view” of
organization
Much accounting practice is geared to prOViding and sustaining a shareholder view of organization, but in recent years, the idea of viewing
organizations from a “stakeholder perspective”
has grown in importance. Increasingly, organizations are becoming viewed as being as much the
property and concern of employees, customers,
managers and the general public, as they are of
“owners”, in the sense that each of these groups
has a deep stake, whether for better or worse, in
the existence ofan organization. Those who provide capital may legally own an organization, but
employees and managers invest their working
lives, careers, creativity, energy and initiative.
Customers may be vitally dependent on the
quality of the organization’s products for their
continued well-being. The public at large also
has a stake in ensuring that the organization is a
good citizen, and does not pollute the environment or engage in other socially irresponsible
practices.
Accountants typically work with the interests
ofjust one or two ofthese stake-holdergroups in
mind, even though the health and well-being of
the organization may ultimately demand a
broader view.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
The point about these four examples of accounting in practice is that they all illustrate: (a)
484 GARETH MORGAN
the perspective-based nature ofaccounting; and
(b) how accounting is central to the process of
reality construction within an organization,
shaping decision-making in accordance with the
values and perspectives underpinning the accounting principles used.
Accountants are enmeshed in a process of
reality construction. They grasp and articulate
complex realities in partial ways, and these
graspings and articulations help to sustain the
realities as perceived.
One of the major challenges facing the accounting profession is to come to grips with
these essential limitations. Rather than cling to
an outdated concept of objectivity, they should
confront the basic subjectivity of their craft and
develop means ofcoping with these limitations.
In my view, this will lead them to adopt a much
more interpretive style of accounting, building
on the principles that: (a) accounting is an interpretive art and always perspective-based; and
(b) that the challenge facing accountants is to
develop forms of practice that emphasize how
;accounting statements and insights should be regarded and used as elements of a conversation·
or dialogue, rather than as foundational claims
asserting a particular kind of objectivity or
“truth”.
A model for developing this interpretive view
ofaccounting is found in Morgan ( 1986), where
the view that effective managers and organizational analysts have to become skilled in the art
of “reading” the situations that they are attempting to organize or manage is developed.3 They
have to learn to see and understand the many
and paradoxical dimensions of organizations,
and find ways ofblending them to provide a critical understanding of the multiple meanings and
range of possible actions with which they are
faced. Skilled managers develop the knack of
reading complex situations with various
scenarios in mind, and of forging actions appropriate to the understandings obtained.
In a similar way, accountants need to be sensitive to the many dimensions of the realities
which they are attempting to “account for”.
They need to learn how to probe these dimensions so that multiple insights can emerge, to
provide broad-based understandings and platforms for relevant actions. Rather than attempt
to represent situations narrowly, through onesided accounting schemes, they should aim to
develop broad-based schemes. But, perhaps
most importantly, whatever scheme they use
they should always be as sensitive to the elements of reality excluded by the scheme, as to
those elements that are included. They should
realize that in using schemes that highlight certain aspects oforganizational reality, they always
tend to obliterate other aspects from view.
In essence, this approach requires a reflective
and critical understandingofthe relationship between the accountant and what is “accounted
for”, and an ability to discern the hidden or repressed dimensions of a particular set of accounts or approach to the interpretation of
those accounts. Accountants have long appreciated the significance of “double-entry” accounting in the production of accounts. What I
am advocating here amounts to a kind of “double-view accounting” in the interpretation of accounts. The accountant must recognize the tension that exists between “the world as viewed by
the accountant”, and “the world in a wider
sense”.
In recognizing this tension, the accountant
will begin to interact and “dialogue” with situations in a much more open-ended interpretive
mode, than is the case when they see themselves
as producing objective or “true” statements.
They will see that their ultimate aim should be to
develop the art of “reading” and probing situations to create intelligent, actionable insights,
rat;J.er than to produce rigid technical statements as ends in themselves. In the process, they
will be able to develop an approach to accounting that is able to address many of the problems
and tensions that characterize relations between
accounting, organizations and society.
3 A related view is also developed in Morgan ( 1983), which describes how social science research can develop a “conversational” mode.
ACCOUNTING AS REALITY CONSTRUCTION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arrington, C E., The Rhetoric of Inquiry and Accounting Research, paper presented to the European
Accounting Association, London, 1987.
Bdkaoui, A., Linguistic RelatiVity in Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society ( 1978) pp. 97-
104.
Berry, A. J., Capps, D., Cooper, D., Ferguson, P., Hopper, T & Lowe, E. A., Management Control in an Area
of the NCB: Rationales of Accounting Practices in Public Enterprise, Accounting, Organizations and
Society ( 1985) pp. 3-28.
Boland, R )., Myth and Technology in the American Accounting Profession, Journal of Management
Sludies (1982) pp. 107-127.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C, Hopwood, A., Hughes, S. & Nahapiet,J., The Roles ofAccounting in Organizations and
Society, Accounting, Organizations and Society ( 1980) pp. 5-28.
Davis, S. W., Menon, K. & Morgan, G., The Images that Have Shaped Accounting Theory, Accounting,
Organizations and Society (1982) pp. 307-318.
Davis, S. W., Accounting for the Hospital Patient as a Product: The Changing Reality of Health Care,
unpublished Working Paper, Queen’s University, Canada (1986).
Gambling, T., Magic, Accounting and Morale,Accounting, Organizations andSociety ( 1977) pp. 141-151.
Littleton, A., The Structure ofAccounting Theory (American Accounting Association, 1953).
Merino, B. D. & Neimark, M. D., Disclosure Regulation and Public Policy,journal ofAccountingandPublic
Polil)’ (1982) pp. 33-57.
Morgan, G., Paradigms, Metaphors and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory, Administrative Science
Quarterly ( 1980) pp. 605–622.
Morgan, G., Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983).
Morgan, G., Images ofOrganization (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986).
Paton, W. & Littleton, A., An Introduction to Corporate Accounting Standards (American Accounting
Association, 1940).
Peters, T & Waterman, R, In Search ofExcellence (Harper & Row, 1982).
Prakash, P. & Rappaport, A., Information Inductance and its Significance in Accounting, Accounting,
Organizations and Society ( 1977) pp. 29-38.
Snowball, D., On the Integration of Accounting Research in Human Information Processing, Accounting
and Business Research ( 1980) pp. 278–318.
Tinker, A. M., Merino, B. D. & Neimark, M. D., The Normative Origins of Positive Theories: Ideology and
Accounting Thought, Accounting, Organizations and Society ( 1982 ) pp. 167-200.
Tinker, T, Paper Prophets: A Social Critique ofAccounting (New York: Praeger, 1985).
485