Mainstreams, Monsters and Global Accounting

Abstract

Differences between accounting paradigms can be interpreted as the composite result of diverse influences and conditions of possibility, of which the purely scientific may be only one among others. Accordingly the epistemological interpretation of such a competition has been supplemented by a number of other perspectives (Arrington and Francis, 1989; Christenson, 1983; Chua, 1986; Lowe et al, 1983; Schreuder, 1985; Sterling, 1990; Tinker 1988; Tinker et al; 1982; Whitley, 1986, 1988, Zeff, 1989). Nevertheless such a manifold debate seems to leave relatively unexplored one additional interpretation such as the one dealing with the aims scopes and possible outcomes of a competitive game between research paradigms. In line with a proposed interpretation (Lukka and Kasanen, 1997) this short paper argues that the existence itself of a competition can be closely connected with an appealing rhetoric such the one of As with many other products and production processes accounting research (and accounting education) can be seen as facing the challenges of internationalisation and responding to the attractive imperative of global. Academic research and education are central in the globalization discourse not only because they provide a large extent of its cultural justification but also because they can be seen as a commodity offered on a fast growing market. New opportunities for the expansion of western academic education and research are emerging with the establishment of the new world order. A number of significant events such as the independence of former soviet republics, the construction of unified (and standardised) European institutions, the reconstruction of eastern European democracies or the rapid economic growth of Asian economies are among the major determinant of insisting calls for globalization. In many of these cases not only institutions and economic infrastructures but also academic systems are said to be in need for reform or re-invention to keep up with predicaments of trends. From this point of view the debate between accounting paradigms can be reformulated around the issue of their globalization and of the degree of internationalisation of the research community build around them. Needless to say that the underlying dogma is that Being local is bad, going global is good: traditions, customs, local accounting dialects are antiquated barriers a truly modern research community is supposed to overcome.