AAAJ
11,2
142
The narrative and its place in
the new accounting history:
the rise of the
counternarrative
Warwick Funnell
University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Introduction
Energetic proponents of the new accounting history have produced
considerable consternation amongst the more traditional of their colleagues
because of the way they have questioned many of the cherished beliefs,
achievements, practices and the value of previously sanctioned accounts of
accounting history. Some traditional accounting historians have therefore felt
they are being goaded and ridiculed by what they see as an intolerant
aberration of “real” accounting history (Tyson, 1993, 1995). This has
encouraged some authors to seek an urgent rapprochement between various
paradigms of accounting history before the perceived differences become
prohibitive (Carnegie and Napier, 1996; Fleischman et al., 1996a; Funnell, 1996;
Merino and Mayper, 1993, pp. 241,257,262; Stewart, 1992)[1]. Until now the
emerging disagreements between the new and traditional accounting historians
have converged on the subject matter and representational faithfulness of
accounting history[2]. Throughout these debates there seems to have been an
implied acceptance of the means used to communicate the results of research
endeavours; an agreement that the writing methods of history will suit all
purposes in accounting history equally well. Carnegie and Napier (1996, p. 8),
for example, after noting that the differences between new and traditional
schools of accounting history “are more of degree than kind”, propose “that
accounting history is enhanced by locating our narratives within an
understanding of the specific context in which the object of our research
emerges and operates”. With the fervour which has accompanied the new
accounting history project, this position is unlikely to go relatively
unchallenged for much longer. In particular, an increasing appreciation of the
implications of the deconstructionist enterprise in critical historiography
(Funnell, 1996; Olabarri, 1995, p. 16) may soon cast doubt on what appears to be
the neutrality of the traditional writing technologies available to new
accounting historians. Deconstructionists have made it clear that the message
obtained from a body of text is interpretationally sensitive both to the content
Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 2, 1998, pp. 142-162,
© MCB University Press, 0951-3574
Submitted December
1996
Revised March 1997
Accepted April 1997
The author would like to thank Richard Laughlin for his comments on an early draft of this paper.