Knowledge accounting is undoubtedly a revolution in the accounting field, since its study is being generated little by little. In this gestation process, we propose that epistemological contextualism is the correct path for its metateorization.
In effect, capital “is by nature always immaterial since it is not matter what makes capital but the value of that matter; value has nothing physical "we have to go, as Marx said, beyond physics to touch the goose that lays the golden eggs. If the classics thought this way, why then do we continue to insist on the static nature of capital? It is definitely a question of context, but this revolution in capital will take place in greater instances as we adopt a different and concurrent vision of our thinking. Therefore, "if the change to knowledge-capital is real, it means that capital itself is increasingly unreal, consisting for the most part of symbols that represent nothing more than other symbols…" and where accounting, you have to formalize,Rather, mathematize for your real understanding.
Consequently, accounting science does not occur in a vacuum but in a context, precisely the accounting context deals with various aspects, such as: economic, political, cultural, psychological and even biological. Summarizing the aforementioned, the accounting context is reduced to: A social, conceptual, historical and empirical aspect. These aspects must be taken into account to speak of accounting science, otherwise we will be speaking only of generally accepted doctrines. In short, it is about epistemological contextualism, through which we will interpret accounting thinking as a conceptual system and not as a fragment of economic science.
II. DISCUSSION GUIDE.
- How important is knowledge accounting in this new world context? Why is epistemological contextualism important in accounting? What difficulties are presented in the axiomatization process of knowledge accounting? What are the epistemological foundations to achieve the metateorization of knowledge accounting?
III. A LITTLE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE: The epistemological perspective in the gestation of knowledge.
General considerations.
Contemporary scientific knowledge, or rather the new scientific spirit, is directed towards the cold abstraction of reason and matter. In other words, it links thought with experience. However, it is first permissible to undertake it within philosophy and epistemology, to better understand its true constructive dimension. It would be better to do it within a thought, to see the convergent efficiency of theory and praxis. For these reasons, it is that in the first annotations of this chapter, I will dedicate some brushstrokes to the theory of knowledge.
In the first instance, what should be clear is that the metateorization of knowledge accounting could not be engendered without first understanding the role of epistemology, including philosophy. Because these categories help any discipline to explain and improve the results of scientific research, in a critical and dialogical way.
But what does philosophy and epistemology have to do with accounting? It would be the first question we would ask ourselves. To respond we must turn our gaze towards the history of accounting thought, in this introspective walk these categories are present in one way or another; for example, the renowned professor Richard Mattessich, is based on his accounting research traditions in Thomas Kuhn's epistemology, although he goes beyond this cognitive system. The same could be said of Leandro Cañibano, who builds his accounting research programs within the context of Imre Lakatos' epistemology.. In such a way that, with these examples, I try to justify my central thesis: implanting and defending epistemological contextualism to achieve the meta-theorizing of knowledge accounting.
The role of philosophy and epistemology in accounting theory
Philosophy allows us to have a critical and discursive vision of our context, that is, it makes our reason an incessant prototype ready to carry out analyzes of all the possible problems of our reality, even going beyond it.
Jesús Mosterín, 1 renowned Spanish philosopher, tells us in this regard that, “today we are all bombarded by a constant avalanche of information through radio, television, books, magazines and the Internet, etc. In all these media anything is strained. So, today more than ever, a filter is required to separate clear and reliable information from confusing or misleading information. It is important that our ideas are as reliable as possible, for which there must be a critical instance, a filter. That instance, that filter is philosophy ”.
Indeed, today we live under an influential post-capitalist society, with its great apocalyptic commandment !: Neoliberalism, stubborn ally of economic globalization. This has given way to an emerging society, where "knowledge base information" is the cornerstone of socio-economic development; fact by which, the society in a certain way is virtualizing itself in all areas. And from this virtualization, "infallible" recipes that enhance reality have been received, however, many of these recipes are nothing more than speculation and conjecture of the context; justification that we find to carry out a critical philosophy that leads us to ingest the essentially plausible.
Therefore, we have seen that there are two well-defined categories: philosophy, a topic that we have already explained, and the epistemology or theory of knowledge that we will now deal with. It is true that epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies scientific research and its product, scientific knowledge. Mere leaf of the tree of philosophy half a century ago, epistemology is today an important branch of it. However, half a century ago, the semantic, ontological, axiological, ethical and other problems that arise in meta-scientific reflection had not yet been noticed. This adherence to philosophy lasted until the moment when epistemology begins its professionalization. two And for that reason, today we speak of particular epistemologies, such as philosophy of physics, biophilosophy, iatrophilosophy, among others.
In this sense, epistemology can be defined in three polyconceptual approaches: (i) Critical - philosophical study of science, (ii) Study of the constitution of valid knowledge and (iii) Study of the passage of the states of least knowledge. to the most rigorous states of knowledge. 3
With this, we want to make clear the role of epistemology as a self-regulating discipline of scientific knowledge. The considerations exposed therefore open a reflective path in the accounting field, because in some way they have been influenced by some epistemological positions engendered throughout the evolutionary period of accounting knowledge. Great influence was, for example, Karl Popper with his falsificationist theory, Thomas Kuhn with his historical epistemology, Lakatos, with his research programs and recently Bunge, with his critical realism.
This is fruitful, but not sufficient. In some cases some accounting essayists overestimate the real context of accounting. That is to say, they leave the rational context of accounting to arrive at a philosophism loaded with demagoguery and dogmatism, lacking internal and external dialogue that must exist in any itinerary aimed at building systematic and plausible concepts. We must, therefore, adopt an accounting philosophy on the basis of which accounting facts must rest, as dependent on theories and meta-theoretical rules; of course, previously a meta-theory must be built, even better if we rely on epistemological studies.
Summarizing, we would say that the theory of knowledge is a philosophical explanation and interpretation of human knowledge, which includes some fundamental questions such as: The possibility of knowledge, that is, whether it is possible for the knowing subject to apprehend the object and to what extent Can objective knowledge be achieved? On the other hand, it also often worries about the origin of knowledge, answering what are the sources of our knowledge? so far it has been explained by both empiricism and rationalism. Two apparently irreconcilable sources, until the appearance of Kant, who masterfully overlaps these two conceptions. Also, another additional question to all this, is about the essence of knowledge and finally about true knowledge, this is about truth:What is the criterion to determine if a knowledge is true or not?
Finally, we will now indicate the benefits that epistemology would bring within accounting, so as not to leave gaps, and even less that they are thought to be mere speculation:
- Letting oneself be prisoners of an incoherent doctrine, imposed beyond its logical rationality by its legal, economic and social character. It will allow to generate new paradigms and research projects in a continuous way; This will broaden the vision of accounting, following the same process of the scientific method. B It will expand the lines and programs of accounting research, intertwining new methods, techniques and strategies that allow high-level research to be carried out. It will lead us to find the scientific rationality of accounting, through theoretical analysis and epistemological reflection. historical review of our discipline; but it will not be an uncritical, static and descriptive review, on the contrary it will be a dynamic, critical, discursive and explanatory review,to find and solve new problems. Since the terminal point constitutes the beginning of new problems, even more complex than the first, it will make us accustomed to systematically explain the hypothetical conjectures raised and, therefore, stop being only receptive and descriptive machines. It will allow the accountant to doubt the data empiricals that depart from theories and contextual frameworks.
Kuhn's historical epistemology and accounting paradigms.
The Kuhnian position, essentially departs from three stages: normal science, anomalies and scientific revolution. But this implies asking some questions, which could very well serve as a starting point to better understand these considerations: What is the nature of normal science? What is a paradigm? What are anomalies? And finally, what does a scientific revolution mean?
In the first instance, normal science "means research firmly based on one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community recognizes for a certain time, as a basis for its later practice." 4
But there is something else, since normal science is scientific realization, so its efficiency in solving anomalies will depend on the plausibility of the paradigms, since these are "accepted examples of current scientific practice, examples that include law, theory, application and instrumentation and provide models from which particular research traditions emerge ” 5 within a scientific community. Therefore, “men whose research is based on shared paradigms are subject to the same rules and norms for scientific practice. This commitment and the apparent consent it elicits are prerequisites for normal science, that is, for the genesis and continuation of a particular tradition of scientific inquiry. ” 6
Indeed, "once paradigm status has been reached, a scientific theory is declared invalid only when an alternative candidate is available to take its place" 7 because to reject "one paradigm without replacing it with another, is to reject science itself" 8 it is to drown in a sea of illusory discourses, instead of looking for the epistemological break to explain reality better, that is, with more objectivity. In all cases it is to reject the very essence of the new scientific spirit.
Of all the above, it is not utopian to say that these epistemological considerations have penetrated accounting thinking; We affirm this since there are accounting works framed within this epistemology. One of those jobs is by MC Wells. For this Anglo-Saxon author, accounting has overcome the process of scientific revolution in the 1940s, and from that time various accounting schools began to emerge 9that each explain in their own way the disciplinary matrix, to later become normal science. In this process, it characterizes accounting in three categories: (i) Symbolic generalizations, represented by the double-entry method, benefits, asset classifications, etc.; (ii) Shared commitments, denoted by the principles of realization, going concern, etc.; and (iii) The copies, which constitute the various books disclosed in a period "t n ".
Lakatos and accounting research programs.
Facing the epistemological controversy starring two illustrious masters, Karl Raimund Popper and Thomas Kuhn, about the falsifiability of theories and paradigm shifts respectively, appears the philosopher Imre Lakatos with his research programs, aimed at reconciling but not eclectically these two positions. However, Lakatos is part of a group of post Popperian epistemologists, it should not be forgotten that Lakatos was Popper's disciple; however, he constructed his arguments independently of both epistemologists.
For Popper, scientific progress lies in learning from our mistakes and through this, increasing our knowledge. That is to say, by revealing our mistakes, it makes us understand the difficulties of the problem we are trying to solve and that is how we get to acquire a deeper knowledge and to be able to propose more mature solutions. 10 Consequently, the object of science is the falsification of its theories and this therefore presupposes the growth of scientific development by refutation of theories. 11 In this context, the Popperian thesis is opposed to the Kuhn arguments that we have referred to previously, in this sense, Popper's scientific progress is cumulative and teleological.
In this context, Lakatos proposes a new epistemological profile based on research programs. He agrees with Popper, regarding his opposition to the hegemony of theories without criticism; However, Lakatos points out, that he is wrong to demand a ruthless rebuttal. As for Kuhn, he considers that he has the right not to criticize a theory that is developed; but he makes the mistake of excepting the entire field. However, Lakatos accepts Kuhn's historical thesis, stating that “the philosophy of science without the history of science is empty; the history of science without the philosophy of science is blind. ” 12
Consequently, "a research program consists of heuristic rules, some of a negative nature, insofar as they tell us which paths of investigation are to be avoided, and others positive, since they indicate the paths that must be followed." 13 Therefore, these research programs can be considered, as a set of theories related to each other, and in the process of development with two fundamental components: the hard nucleus and a heuristic belt.
But what impact does this epistemological position have on accounting knowledge? Therefore, answering this question will be the task of the following paragraphs. The first manifestations of the Lakatian application to accounting, is done by the famous professor Richard Mattessich. Indeed, for Mattessich there are accounting research traditions that some communities adopt, or rather, from which they guide their research. To do this, it presents "two questions first, that in accounting as in any other discipline, there are different research traditions that compete between each other if there is no single dominant paradigm, and second, which is the most important, each tradition research constitutes an entire network of theoretical elements, and that in some way compete with each other, but in a more moderate and secondary way "that must evolve as the theoretical matrix element is overcome.
Another approach to research programs is presented by Professor Leandro Cañibano. In his opinion, "there are three research programs, within the framework of which the accounting processes have been developed, which he calls legalistic, economic and formal." 14
From everything explained, we can conclude that accounting is not foreign to epistemological and philosophical positions, rather it feeds on them. We could suggest then, that this is the true task of every accountant, to overlap with science and epistemology to build the desired unifying theory, but unfortunately very few conceive it that way. While it is true that this overlap is fruitful, it does not mean, on the contrary, to have reached the end of the investigation, in any way, it is rather a brief leap towards the scientific revolution, where we must always be vigilant.
IV. IN DEFENSE OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONTEXTUALISM: Theoretical Compartments.
The vision of the world and its antinomies.
Let's start by questioning the existence of a single philosophical or scientific notion and vision about science. Both the common man and the philosopher or scientist, understand in their own way the world view. Often they both get close to certain philosophical and ideological positions, such as believing in the existence of an extraordinary being who created all things (religion), or in the scientific explanation that the universe and therefore life is originated in the big bang (Materialistic).
In general, there is a common man who perceives reality different from that which the scientist can perceive. And making an analogy, we could also say that there is a Common Accountant Professional and a Scientific Accountant Professional. Both will have different and distant conceptions of accounting.
Let's look at an example in a game. Let's compare the common man with the beginner of the chess game, and the scientist with the experienced player. The beginner perceives that the pieces of the game are the king, queen, bishop, etc. and therefore each piece is a simple doll that moves on the board, from a mere different to the other. This is the common man's vision of the game of chess.
The seasoned player has another distant concept. The horse, for example, is the set of all the moves that are possible for this piece in each context of the game. Moving the horse, then, is not to move a doll from one square to another, but to alter in an integral way the possible moves of that same piece and of all the others that are on the board. Consequently, for him, each piece is an articulated set of play possibilities.
The professional player, the seasoned among the seasoned, comes to have the richest concept of all: the pieces do not really exist in themselves, but only as points of greater consistency in a dynamic board that is a total configuration of possible moves. Therefore, the game now consists of moving from one total configuration to another total configuration, not moving a piece from one place to another. In other words, the beginner has an atomistic concept of the game (the game as a set of pieces) and, on the contrary, the professional player has a contextualist concept of the game, that is, the game as a structure.
In short, the context determines our language and our conception of the object. The example, which I have just quoted, teaches us that it is not a problem of simple opinions but of language, that is, of referential content. And that content is increasingly nurtured if the researcher becomes more and more familiar with the context. We must also understand that this context is not static, but changing and changeable.
For this reason, I dare say that for the metateorization process of knowledge accounting, it is inescapable to find Esperanto of contextualism. There is the possibility that in the process of formalizing accounting knowledge certain cognitive and non-cognitive aspects are presented, but this does not imply the inadequate axiomatization of the matter, on the contrary, it would be the correct way to build such a theory. In simple words, we must defend epistemological contextualism, since it would be the epistemological vector that pushes the accounting community (scientists) not to leave out context reference systems.
In conclusion, this contextualist concept of accounting science is very fruitful. Language and science are instruments in the hands of man, in no way are consecrated systems and therefore untouchable by nature. We must keep in mind that accounting science is a global and structured system that moves with history and advances by overcoming contradictions. Validating pragmatic factors is of utmost importance, since they constitute the elements that make up the context. In reality, "a pure theory of knowledge that does not take into account the results of the empirical sciences would operate in a vacuum or degenerate into a dogmatic a priori" 15 that is, like Kant's transcendental philosophywho said: Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind I would say that accounting theory without any contextual system would be like a blank sheet, waiting for someone to write something about it, but unfortunately many of these writings are nothing more than pure quackery.
Consequently, in the totality is the true Esperanto of reason. Let us take a simple example: The experienced accountant does not resort to reviewing each of the accounting entries, when his balance does not add up, but he does it by first checking the structure, that is, his balance sheet and from there, proceeds in the same style of the crab method until the error is found or located. Then the complex, the built, the structured is inevitable, this always has the initiative in knowledge, as Salazar Bondy, Bachelard's translator, points out to us: “it is not the simple but the composite notions that are fruitful in scientific work. "
The accounting context
The essayists who have been concerned with making "accounting theory" have committed an original sin, of working in isolation and each in his own way; That is to say, according to the ideological inclination and the scholastic influences, they specified some concepts and doctrines, thus adding some verses to the already tangled accounting literature. Even reaching a number of concepts that confuse the researcher himself; it would be well to paraphrase Lord Robbinson again, who said that "we all talk about the same, but we have not yet agreed on what we are talking about", we can draw a lesson from these almost poetic phrases: Each essayist speaks in different ways, creating a plurality of languages within the accounting concept. In other words, there are different languages, for different uses, even for different purposes.
The capital price paid for this plurality of language is, without a doubt, the appearance of contradictions, gaps or gaps within accounting thinking. We cannot, therefore, isolate it from a precise and emergent context that essayists have forgotten. In the section we have seen an example about the context, in that issue, there are a plurality of concepts; that is, as the context is deepened, a more rational concept will be found of what is being discussed. In this sense, language and science are instruments in the hands of man. And within the contextualism that we are trying to defend, the vision of reality cannot be separated, there are several aspects to take into account; for example, there cannot be a separation between the syntactic and the semantic, the concept must be a totality.
Consequently, accounting science does not occur in a vacuum but in a context, precisely the accounting context deals with various aspects, such as: economic, political, cultural, psychological and even biological. Summarizing the aforementioned, the accounting context is reduced to: A social, conceptual, historical and empirical aspect. In short, it is about accounting contextualism, through which we will interpret accounting thinking as a conceptual system and not as a fragment of economic science.
THE ACCOUNTING CONTEXT AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM
SOURCE: Author's own conception.
There is another context that must be taken into account, that is, the convergence between the social and the cognitive context. Here too, four compartments will come into view; however, the social system in this case, becomes a subsystem in contrast to the first context that we have explained in the previous paragraph. Consequently, we will call this convergence of the cognitive and the social “ systematic context ” which is a more complete system. The compartments are: (i) The social aspect, (ii) the empirical aspect, (iii) the conceptual and (iv) the historical aspect. All these compartments co-emerge and interact in accounting knowledge.
The social aspect also has cultural incidences; but we are not going to be distracted by social theories, such as functionalism and Marxism, let us leave it to sociologists and philosophers; Let us rather concern ourselves with the social compartment. Indeed, we are all part of a society, it does not matter if one is a scientist or not, the truth is that we are imbued with it; In other words, accounting research cannot take place without a social context, since these cover many social groups, from an accounting community to others such as suppliers, clients, shareholders, etc. As for the historical aspect it is also of utmost importance. Accounting activity as research cannot occur without taking into account historicism; that is to say, that scientific activity occurs throughout history,generating new paradigmatic traditions on which some accounting community will be based. The last two compartmental dimensions (empirical and conceptual) are cognitive in nature.
THE SYSTEMATIC CONTEXT OF ACCOUNTING
SOURCE: Author's own conception.
In conclusion, the systematic context is of a four-dimensional nature: T = {S, H, C, E}; that is, the compartments that compose them interact with each other, driving the development of metatheory. In other words, they are the foundation by which the meta-theorizing of knowledge accounting must begin.
V. FUNDAMENTALS FOR METATHORIZATION OF ACCOUNTING OF KNOWLEDGE.
Epistemological vectors
Accounting knowledge cannot be static but dynamic; that is, transportable in space and time; For example, let's analyze the nature of capital: it has not yet transformed, since Karl Marx and Adam Smith were concerned with the theorizing of capital, its adaptation to changes in context is inherent and necessary, as science and technology advance.
Consequently, capital “is by nature always immaterial since it is not matter that makes capital but the value of that matter; value has nothing physical " 16 we have to go, as Marx said, beyond physics to touch the goose that lays the golden eggs. If the classics thought this way, why then do we continue to insist on the static nature of capital? It is definitely a question of context, but this revolution in capital will take place at higher levels as we adopt a different and concurrent vision of our thinking. Therefore, "if the change to knowledge-capital is real, it means that capital itself is increasingly unreal, consisting for the most part of symbols that represent nothing more than other symbols…" 17 and where the accounting, has to formalize, or rather mathematize for its real understanding.
From this analysis of capital we can say that we are facing a new capital that is not made up of machinery, buildings, land, etc. but for an INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL, a capital based on the capacity of its people; Then, the accountant will be a knowledge manager, as long as it adapts to new contexts.
But what are epistemological vectors? I will try to define it as the compositions of endogenous and exogenous forces that guide the development of accounting knowledge; the resultant of which is the action of the rigor of thought towards its metateorization. But this is also transportable in space and time, that is, there is a transposition of these vectors in direct relation to the progress of research programs that the accounting community is immersed in. In any case, the resultant is another epistemological vector, but more rigorous and rich in logical concepts, that is, it is more rational and systematic.
Once we have defined epistemological vectors, we will try to explain their components and their constitution. Regarding the first, they consist of (i) a methodology, (ii) instruments and techniques, (iii) a basic matrix and (iv) a sentinel belt. We will not explain each of these components, because it is tacitly comprehensive. Regarding its constitution we will start from the following graph:
CONSTITUTION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL VECTORS
SOURCE: Author's own conception.
In the graph we can see the concurrence of four vectors: where " F " comes to be the formal vector, " S " the substantial vector, " C " the conditioning vector, " E " the causal vector and, " R " represents the vector resulting. All of them converge at point “ P ”, which we will call the concurrence of accounting thinking. In this center, the vector system acts with forces independent of each other, in such a way that they cause a transposition and that in this case, it would come to make the vector " R ", that is, the resultant of the compartmental forces of the vectors.
But what does all this mean? It is very simple. Accounting knowledge is subject to cultural, social and economic issues. These are the so-called non-cognitive drivers, such as the accounting community; but there are also cognitive drivers or forces that I call epistemological vectors, well, all thought can never be out of context, therefore there are three aspects to take into account: the accounting community, the society and the paradigms in which researchers are guided. The vectors we have mentioned act on them, each one exerts a force on thought. The formal vector seeks the axiomatization of accounting thinking, such as through equations, logical semantics, rules, etc. that is, it exerts an axiomatizing force on the accounting system. As for the substantial vector,We can say that it seeks the interpretation of accounting thinking, based on new categories, principles, etc. The conditioning vector are those that "condition thinking" and can be of a cultural, economic or psychological nature. The causal vector comes to make the set of all the circumstances whose presence necessarily determines the effect. And finally there is the resulting vector, who has the most nurtured concept of all, since the forces exerted on the system will fall on him, but also constitutes an approximation to the theoretical rationality of accounting thinking.The causal vector comes to make the set of all the circumstances whose presence necessarily determines the effect. And finally there is the resulting vector, who has the most nurtured concept of all, since the forces exerted on the system will fall on it, but it also constitutes an approximation to the theoretical rationality of accounting thinking.The causal vector comes to make the set of all the circumstances whose presence necessarily determines the effect. And finally there is the resulting vector, who has the most nurtured concept of all, since the forces exerted on the system will fall on it, but it also constitutes an approximation to the theoretical rationality of accounting thinking.
Convergence theory.
Let us first clarify the term METATORIZATION, what does this mean? To answer, it is necessary to give a brushstroke, albeit roughly, which is the theory. Well, a theory is a set of true (or false) statements about a given object, that is, about individuals and relationships that exist between them. A theory can be said to be a language about a universe: T = <L, U>. But a T theory in turn can become an object of investigation. The T 1 theory that speaks of T theory is called the T-theory meta-theory, whose theory, in this context, becomes the theory-object. The objective of scientific work is the search for certain theories.
Therefore, when we refer to metatheorization of knowledge accounting (accounting thinking), we are accepting the theoretical subsystems that must be systematized to speak only of a theory itself. That is to say, of the various pre-theoretical stages that exist in accounting, there are at least some that can be systematized, or rather it can serve as a meta-theory for a more general theory. Then, the metateorization of accounting thinking will be from the "primitive" stages to the states of systematization.
This thesis that we are trying to defend confirms us, the evolution of the accounting object carried out by the various schools, we know from the qualitative exploration that I have allowed myself, that there are no self-sufficient schools. That is, schools overlap with some postulates to each other. Of this, I dare say, we must metaphorize accounting from the dialectical review of the pre-theoretical stages.
METALIZING OF ACCOUNTING THINKING
SOURCE: Author's own conception.
From theoretical models we can build meta-theories that in the end can be the object of study of a more general theory, what I mean to say is that to achieve the scientific status of accounting, you must first go through meta-theorization to reach a theory unified but this is possible only with the accounting convergence theory that I am trying to conceive. All sciences, or science families converge with other sciences, accounting cannot be the exception. Of course, to manifest this, some convergent or theoretical principles must be taken into account.
All science if it does not want to reach extinction must overlap with other neighboring sciences, in that sense there is no isolated science, but let us look no further at the “… breadth and originality of the transformations that are taking place in the human and social sciences, under the influence of the most recent currents of modern mathematical thought. " 18 All this makes us see that even the soft sciences overlap with the formal sciences. It would not be strange, that we would speak for example, of ecoauditing, of contafilology, of contalogy, geocontalogy, etc.
Other clearer examples that explain and confirm the overlapping of the sciences are the following: Astronautics is an interdisciplinary science, because it covers physics, astronomy, mathematics, chemistry, biology, medicine, electronics and meteorology. Biophysics is another similar case, because it studies biological phenomena by using the principles and techniques of physics. Biochemistry, which is the study of substances present in living organisms and the chemical reactions on which life processes are based. And so, we have a number of sciences that overlap with other sciences, such as physiology, psychophysics, bioengineering, geochemistry, human geography, and pedology, which is at the crossroads of the earth and life sciences. and it is fundamental for the conservation of the natural environment. In short, we have many more examples in this regard that confirm the overlapping of the sciences.
In this context, accounting must also overlap with some neighboring sciences, but that is only possible with one theory, which I will call accounting convergence theory. I mean, a convergent theory is a set of theoretical models from other sciences that can be applied without contradiction and ambiguity to accounting. Here, many accounting theorists have failed to study accounting in isolation from a systematic context. Accounting, therefore, must converge with the economy, administration, psychology, ecology, etc. but let's see, a special case; that is, what would be the convergence of accounting, economics and administration. Let us see, then, what happens with this disciplinary triad.
RESULT OF THE THEORY OF CONVERGENCE
SOURCE: Author's own conception.
There are three disciplinary sets, the first one I will call "C" which is equivalent to saying Accounting; the second, "E" to designate the economy and "A" for the administration. Let's find through the algebra of sets, the following relationships:
- C ∩ A = Managerial accounting. C ∩ E = Business economics. C ∩ A ∩ E = Business Science. (iv) CUAUE = Φ (empty)
From the relationships found, we can see that managerial accounting is the overlap of accounting and administration. Therefore, it should not surprise us that accounting uses some theoretical foundations of administration.
The intersection of accounting and economics results in business economics. It deals with a subject not very unknown by accounting, as it is, decision making; that is to say, maximize the profits or results of the company. In other words, business economics is about how profit can be bigger.
Finally, the convergence of the three disciplines, which I called a disciplinary triad, will result in a new entrepreneurial vision, not to call it a new science; it's about business science. It is not a matter of uniting the three disciplines, but of converging; Rather, it is an intersection of common aspects or elements, so the union of the three disciplines is ad absurdum a lost illusion. We must not confuse uniting with intersecting, they are two different things; because if we were to unite the three disciplines it would be counterproductive with the object or field of action of a science and that, of course, is not my objective. For some reason, in one of the relationships found, the union to which I refer is null, that is, empty. (C U A U E = Φ)
This does not mean that accounting has only these overlaps, on the contrary there are other overlaps with other sciences. For example, with psychology, ecology, mathematics, history, etc. Today epistemological bridges must be built between one science and another, accounting should not be alien to that construction if it does not want to become extinct. All science, whatever its nature, must be interdisciplinary, otherwise it will be considered as solipsism and therefore will be absorbed by a science that has a greater "gravity". It depends on us that accounting acquire that theoretical "mass" capable of attracting any neighboring discipline that comes close. And not to be the one that, we are attracted and absorbed by others.
In summary, what I am trying to make clear is that accounting, like any other science, must build disciplinary bridges with other sciences. For example, an accountant who deals only with the accounts and the balance or the results of the mutations of the accounts, would be missing an essential reference system that is the social context; that is, the groups that require the information, the policies that regulate or prescribe the doctrine and those that give added value to the information.
Therefore, accounting must have an epistemological bridge with sociology, psychology, mathematics, and political science. It will not be strange, then, that accounting research programs are more interdisciplinary. No wonder that in the near future, accounting is investigating aspects of social life, the environment, behavior and the useful life of the human being; that is, an anthropocontalogy, to call it that. In conclusion, what we must rescue from the construction of epistemological bridges is the undiminished vision of accounting, but to have a systemic vision, which at the same time is complex, but will open up more and more new multidisciplinary branches; That will be the challenge that the accountant of the future will have to face.
SAW. CONCLUSIONS
- Epistemology and philosophy are paths that must be nuanced with accounting, since it is the only viable path where reason and experience find their effectiveness. Likewise, it will open a reflective path for us to systematize accounting knowledge. Great influence was, for example, Karl Popper with his falsificationist theory, Thomas Kuhn with his historical epistemology, Lakatos, with his research programs and recently Bunge, with its critical realism. Therefore, the accountant should not be oblivious to these epistemological positions, as well as the accounting community, which is responsible for promoting these categories. Accounting in its historical evolution has not had a specific reference system, that is, it does not have a theoretical model that allows you to insert yourself into a general theory; therefore, defending contextualism is inescapable, because it acts as a reference system that encompasses rational concepts. And this would allow theoretical construction. This contextualist concept of accounting is very fruitful. Language and science are instruments in the hands of man, in no way are consecrated systems and therefore untouchable by nature. We must keep in mind that accounting science is a global and structured system,that moves with history and advances by overcoming contradictions. Validating pragmatic factors is of utmost importance, since they constitute the elements that make up the context. In reality, “a pure theory of knowledge that does not take into account the results of the empirical sciences would operate in a vacuum or degenerate into a dogmatic a priori”, that is, like the transcendental philosophy ofKant who said: Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. I would say that accounting theory without any contextual system would be like a blank sheet, waiting for someone to write something about it, but unfortunately many of these writings they are nothing more than pure quackery. For the metateorization process of knowledge accounting, it is necessary first of all to conceive the accounting context that would be made up of the following contents: (i) biological, (ii) cultural, (iii) political and (iiii) Economic. Second, we must adopt what we will call the “ systematic contextWhich is a more complete system. The compartments are: (i) The social aspect (this becomes a reference subsystem at this point), (ii) the empirical aspect, (iii) the conceptual and (iv) the historical aspect. All these compartments co-emerge and interact in accounting knowledge. Symbolizing this context, we would say that it is dimensional: T = {S, E, C, H}
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALBERT, H. The possibility of knowledge: From the Transcendental approach to the evolutionary theory of knowledge; Theorem, XIV, 1987.
BACHELARD, Gastón. The new scientific spirit, Peru, Editorial Labor SA, Translation and preliminary study by Augusto Salazar Bondy, 1972
BAPTISTE SAY, Jean. Traité d´économie polotique, Paris, Deterville, Vol. II, 1819.
BUNGE, Mario. Epistemology, Barcelona, Editorial Ariel, 1985.
CAÑIBANO, Leandro. Current theory of accounting: analytical techniques and methodological problems, Madrid, Editorial ICE, 2nd. Edition, 1979.
KUHN, Thomas. The structure of scientific revolutions, Colombia, Publishing Fund of economic culture, 1994.
LAKATUS, Imre. History of science and its rational reconstructions, Madrid, Editorial Tecnos, 1993.
WASHING, Lucas. (Compiler) Tasks of philosophy, Peru, Editorial Mantaro, 1997.
LEVI STRAUSS, Claude. Structuralism and epistemology, Argentina, Editorial Nueva vision, 1970.
MALPARTIDA, Darwin and Oscar, DIAZ. Epistemological studies in accounting theory, Peru, Thesis presented and approved at the I National Symposium of Teachers of Accounting Science at the Peruvian University, Tingo María, 2001.
Piaget, Jean. Nature and methods of epistemology, Argentina, Editorial Proteo, Translation by Hugo Acevedo, 1970.
POPPER, Karl. The logic of scientific research, Madrid, Editorial Tecnos, 1967.
TOFFLER, Alvin. The change of power, Spain, Plaza & Janes Editores SA, Translation by Rafael Aparicio, 1994.
WELL, MC A revolution an accounting thought. Accounting review, VOL. 51, July, 1976.
Download the original file
