In order not to enter the depth of the subject in a very hasty way, I consider it necessary to take into account some previous considerations about the coincidences and disagreements in the thinking of these authors, so that later the analysis of the text Paradigms in the Accounting, make it easier.
1. Parallel Kuhn-Popper
- Kuhn: Accept the verification. Popper: Accept falsification. Denies the existence of verification processes.
- Kuhn: The scientist is tested, if he fails to try to solve an anomaly, it is because of his incapacity and not because of the theory. Popper:
The conjecture, theory or myth (they are equivalent), which is intended to be destroyed, is tested.
- Kuhn: There are two moments in science: Normal and Revolutionary. Scientists research to break paradigms (that is, they are revolutionary, they carry out divergent research), or to accumulate knowledge on the basis of a theory (convergent research) without interest in questioning it.
Popper: Considers that normal science is not so important in the development of scientific knowledge, affirms that true scientists are revolutionaries at all times, but they are not, they should be considered as simple pseudoscientists.
- Kuhn: The historical development of scientific knowledge is not related to the demonstration of the falsity of our theories. Popper: Scientific knowledge advances by conjecture and refutation, falsification and refutation are the same.
- Kuhn: Your unit of analysis is the Paradigm. It is said that Kuhn takes the term paradigm in more than 20 different senses. Here we will deal with the theories, research methodologies, and instruments shared by a community of scientists. Popper: Your unit of analysis is Conjectures or Theories. two.
Accounting paradigms: a late critical reflection
If Kuhnnian thought is analyzed a little, it is extremely curious that hundreds of years had to pass from classical mechanics and physics to relativism, and from creationism to evolutionism, while in accounting, according to Jorge Túa Pereda, in little less than a century there were three different paradigms.
It could be thought that this happened because during this period (20th century) accounting underwent a process of renewal and theoretical substitutions because it had to adjust to changing reality.
Also, that instead of paradigm shifts, there was simply an accumulation of knowledge based on the existing paradigm to which new aspects were clarified, purified and added.
Another position worth mentioning is that accounting has never undergone a scientific revolution, since Kuhn's ideas cannot be applied to it, because it is not a science.
However, in order not to enter into discussions improvechozas let us tentatively attribute to it, in order to develop the first two positions, this character.
Undoubtedly, any suspicious person can use this to affirm that thanks to attitudes such as these, it is possible to classify accounting knowledge within a few philosophical conceptions about the advancement of scientific knowledge, perhaps you are Of those who share this idea, I confess that I also, so I will discuss this a bit later.
The first position is that accounting underwent paradigm shifts to overcome anomalies that arose due to changes in economic reality and that in the last of these changes, the information utility paradigm prevailed.
It is not intended to explain what this consists of, it also seems to be a completely clear and coherent statement, but it is not thus subjected to a critical examination, that is, applying a little Popperian thought about the development of theories about the world, that is to say with a critical attitude, paying special attention to critical thinking, and only if it comes to the case, with some empirical argument.
First, a paradigm is, according to Kuhn, shared by successive generations of scientists, revolutionary changes are rare and long periods of preliminary convergent research are needed, and none of this agrees with what Túa Pereda implicitly states: of three different paradigms in a century., which are those of the registration function, economic vision and the utility function of the information.
Another aspect is that the usefulness of the information is not new, if accounting could not provide information about the economic situation of a company or government, or any other institution that seeks control of its resources, it would be totally useless, but as you can do it, it was and is, usable knowledge.
What happens is that the information is the end product of a process that is based on some registers and that it is about the same reality, only that for some people part of that information is more useful than the other, this conditions not so much what that will be produced but rather that which will be delivered to the users of the information according to their specific needs.
And this is not a new theory, it cannot even be said to be a theory, and is it that the economic vision and the registry have changed or been replaced? The answer is no, because without registration there is no information and assuming that this registration function was an outdated paradigm, how is it possible that the conceptions it contains have not been contested? Simply because they cannot be.
And with regard to the first, that of the economic vision, there is no information without it because this is necessarily economic, it is something, therefore, that can not be dispensed with.
To the supposed paradigm of searching and registering the truth, only one new element has been added, which again has little, and that is the attention of users and their needs, this is because after the economic crisis of 1929-1930 awareness of the need to make accounting information public, in order to anticipate and avoid another similar situation; note that this has failed.
In an article titled Accounting and Economic Development; A challenge for the 21st century, Túa Pereda affirms that one of the consequences of the utility paradigm is "obtaining balanced and adequate economic development", rather, it means that discipline contributes to perpetuating social inequalities, because In the countries of the world, economic development is only the benefit of a few thanks to the exploitation of many.
Accounting has not changed its function or paradigms, it serves and is purified today for the same as it was some centuries ago, and it is to contribute to maintaining and improving the dominant position of the great economic powers, before the church and mainly feudal lords, now from companies and governments.
It is still based on records according to the double entry (I do not think it can be otherwise at the moment), in the vision of economic reality, and as a slightly new element, its final product, both qualitative and quantitative information is oriented, in large part the objectives and qualities with which you must meet.
According to the thought of Kuhn, what has been outlined here has not been a scientific revolution for a few centuries, it continues with the same methods, registration technique and theories, ah, and with some additional aspects, I admit, but the essence of The conceptual framework of accounting still stands and its fall is not in sight, we cannot strictly speak then, that there have been such paradigm shifts as Túa proposes.
We have thus arrived at the second position, that of accounting being in a normal state of science in which it has managed to accumulate a lot of knowledge on the basis of the same function (some dogmas), to produce information the same as before, only that now much more efficiently and effectively with a quality and objectivity previously unthinkable.
Or if we want, we come to the third position according to which accounting is only an instrument of power, through which exploitation is perfected and why not, the dominance of some over others, which is disguised under the illusion Scientific name, and it is kept safe thanks to the overwhelming success of the alignment process.
However, this position does not know that all science is applied to some degree and, as Bacon said "knowledge is power" and therefore, anyone who can acquire the achievements of a science for his benefit, obtains an instrument of power that he can use to enslaving, or rather dominating others, or perhaps, actually happens in reality, to extend the benefits of scientific knowledge to humanity.
But the latter happens very limitedly, today as a couple of centuries ago, Rosseau's expression "Man has been born free and everywhere lives in chains" still applies, which I will address according to Popper's thought in another text that I hope to publish soon.
In this text I would have to reformulate the denial of the scientific nature of accounting knowledge, since my purpose is no more, in this case, I repeat, than to analyze the issue of paradigms in accounting, so we discarded the third position but added some of its elements to the second that would be as follows: Accounting is a scientific knowledge more applied than pure, which is in a normal stage and seeks the protection of private and governmental rather than social interests.
If you do not agree with what this position implies, reflect a little, because you speak just to take an example, of the paradigm of usefulness of financial information with special emphasis on companies and not social accounting; if it is this, a social science.
The answer is as simple and obvious as it is disillusioning, we cannot apply Thomas Kuhn's thinking in accounting because it does not fit, at least not as Túa Pereda suggests, Kuhn should be distorted or taken only in what is convenient and this is not responsible and it is not sincere, but it cannot be argued that it is because our discipline is not a science.
Therefore, the third position is unsatisfactory, although what it implies is valid.
It does not turn out that way, the second position, since the first has been completely discarded, but I remind you that this presents a serious drawback, and that is that it rejects even partially, not only some of the ideas of Túa Pereda but many others who they have adopted Kuhnianno thought;
And this is really fair, note that the theoretical framework of accounting is almost the same in all the countries of the world, although there are many organizations such as AAA and accounting thinkers that insist on enunciating what they call paradigmatic structures in accounting, and this it is really absurd.
The thinkers of our discipline must accept that the use of the term paradigm has been and continues to be abused, otherwise a large number of different theories, methods, instruments, etc. would abound.
