Surveying the landscape: The first 15 years of Accounting History as an international journal

Abstract

Accounting History celebrated a milestone at the end of 2010 – its first 15 years as an international refereed journal. This paper examines and provides commentary on the articles that have appeared in the journal from 1996 to 2010 using a series of thematic landscapes depicting dominant research trends and trajectories. Addressed are issues connected with the emergence of new themes, methods and topics, and the relative decline of other areas of historical accounting research. The investigation of these landscapes also provided the opportunity to explore and advance ideas concerning some unanswered calls and prospects in mapping the future content and profile of Accounting History.

Keywords

accounting history accounting research historiography literature analysis literature review thematic analysis

A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of idea. (John Ciardi, 1972)

An international, refereed, scholarly research journal¹ since 1996, Accounting History (hereafter AH) has opened doors for established and neophyte accounting historians to explore a range of traditional, emerging and new topics in studying accounting’s past. The journal has also provided an outlet for researchers to publish studies which are based on the application of a wide array of research philosophies, historiographies and theoretical lenses. Over time, it is apparent that the landscape of historical research in accounting is transforming, with some avenues of inquiry in decline, and fresh vistas being discovered or revealed by researchers turning their attention to alternative topics, methods and conceptual frameworks. In examining the journal’s first 15 years (1996 to 2010), qualitative thematic analysis is used to focus on the past pursuits and preoccupations of accounting historians, the present passions of these researchers, and the potentialities and as yet untapped opportunities available to them.

AH is the journal of the Accounting History Special Interest Group (AHSIG) of the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ). The history of the journal’s development from its inception in 1989, and more particularly from 1996 to 2005, is deftly explained in Williams and Wines’ (2006) review of the journal’s first 10 years on the international scene, and so does not require reiteration here. There have, however, been several changes in the structural characteristics of the journal since that time. While the Editorial Board of the journal from 1996 has been intentionally international, there have been progressive appointments to the Board of further experts from non-Anglo-American countries, such as Italy, Spain and Portugal (see Appendix 1). In 2006, production of the journal moved to a scholarly commercial publishing house (SAGE Publications), together with an expansion from three to four issues per annum from that date, leading Carnegie (2006, p.5) to conclude that “a bright and stable future for the journal is envisaged”. Effective from the beginning of 2008, Brian West became Joint Editor of the journal, alongside Garry Carnegie who had been sole Editor since 1996.

Analysing the accounting history literature

There is an agglomeration of extant studies providing insights into whom and what is being published in connection with studies of accounting’s past, together with how, why, and where these studies have been conducted and ultimately disseminated. These works,² inclusive of those published in AH (e.g. Hammond, 2003; Williams & Wines, 2006; Faria, 2008; Schäffer & Binder, 2008; Bisman, 2011; Buhr, 2011), have generally taken the form of literature reviews or content analysis studies, although a few have also employed citation analysis.

However, in examining histories of accounting research, Richardson and Young (2011, p.133) state that accounting researchers “have ignored the conditions of possibility under which accounting research streams have been produced, pursued, transformed or abandoned”. The current paper examines this issue in the microcosm of accounting research situated within historical contexts as published in a particular scholarly journal. This is accomplished by surveying different, albeit often overlapping, facets of this literature characterised as landscapes. Yet, by drawing on work from other relevant specialist and generalist journals³ in the English language to inform analysis of the dominance, emergence or decline of particular themes across the collection of almost 190 articles, comments and replies published in AH from 1996 to 2010, the findings and lessons emerging from this longitudinal review of a sole journal are rendered more broadly informative.

In scanning this landscape, several pivotal prior works (Parker, 1993; Carnegie & Napier, 1996; Napier, 2006; Walker, 2008) provided an initial frame for exploring whether, and to what extent, calls for new directions in research or more directed attention to under-researched areas have been addressed by authors publishing in AH. Such calls for change to the scope of historical accounting research are also complemented by recommendations for broadening approaches to historiography and the utilisation of alternative paradigms and theories (see Previts et al., 1990b; Fleischman et al., 1996a; Parker, L.D. 1997; Carnegie & Napier, 2002; Guthrie & Parker, 2006). Several articles of this nature have been published in AH (e.g. Fleischman et al., 1996b; Gomes, 2008), together with papers exploring facets of the development of accounting history as a discipline and of the international scholarly community that supports it (e.g. Carnegie & Rodrigues, 2007; Richardson, 2008).

Almost two decades ago, Parker (1993, p.106; also see Carmona, 2004) contended that: “The writing of accounting history is increasingly dominated by writers in English discussing private sector accounting in English-speaking countries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries … the scope of accounting history is much wider than this”. Carnegie and Napier’s (1996) seminal paper⁴ published in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ) not only explored how the accounting history literature had taken on a less anodyne nature with what was, at the time, the relatively recent development of a variety of approaches to research labelled ‘new’ accounting history, but also presaged the emergence of other directions. Their paper is of particular interest since it was published in 1996 and thus says much about the state, nature and deficiencies of historical accounting research when AH first entered the international arena. Carnegie and Napier (1996) suggested that the research effort could be classified according to several themes, being: studies of surviving business records; use of accounting records in business history; biography; prosopography; institutional history; public sector accounting; and comparative international accounting history, with a further category for historiography later added to this schema by Carnegie and Potter (2000b). Along slightly different lines reflective of changes in the interim, Walker’s (2008) study of the accounting history content of AAAJ was structured according to the themes of: technical issues; accounting in business organisations; cost and management accounting; historiography; professionalisation; and socio-cultural studies. Another review of historical accounting research in a specific journal, Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), was written by Napier (2006). This article was very much targeted at the identification and discussion of approaches and topics relevant to interdisciplinary, critical and social studies of accounting history (‘new’ accounting history), with AOS (along with AAAJ) being a key outlet for work in the genre. Napier’s thematic categorisations of the historical accounting research reported in AOS were: accounting, power and knowledge; the accountant and the allure of professionalisation; and presenting the economic – financial reporting and accounting.

While not necessarily forming primary categorisations in these key papers, other motifs that are manifest in them were elemental in formulating the architecture of the current study. In effect, many of the concerns and forecasts expressed in Carnegie and Napier (1996), Napier (2006) and Walker (2008) emulate and amplify Parker’s (1993) observations about research concentration in English-speaking countries, the private sector, and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Walker (2008, p.296), for example, pointed to the need for historical accounting research to engage with “broader theoretical, temporal and spatial parameters”, and to be more “indigenously sensitised”. Napier (2006, pp.459–60) considered the role of “voices from below” in forwarding the discourse on accounting in connection with gender, race and ethnicity. Similarly, Carnegie and Napier (1996, p.30) stressed the need to comprehend the archive in ways that move research beyond profit-oriented businesses so as to include “individuals, not-for-profit organisations, the public sector and other entities” and to envelop “comparative research across firms, localities, industries and time periods”.

The “‘hegemony’ of dead white males” (also see Perrin, 1997, p.5; Cook, 2001, p.17; and Sy & Tinker, 2005, p.47), representative of the view that “the History of the world is but the Biography of great men” (Carlyle, 1840, p.34), has, in the past, served to confine accounting history by marginalising or discounting women (see Carnegie et al., 2003) and people of various races, ethnicity, and, by inference, different religions (see Hammond, 2003; Hammond et al., 2009; Buhr, 2011). Additionally, such a vantage places an undue emphasis on the ‘famous’ individual as opposed to the ‘ordinary’ person, as well as undervaluing the collective influence and action of groups, organisations and societies. Moving forward in accounting history, and in AH as an influential specialist journal in the field, therefore relies on the conduct and publication of studies that in composite are inclusive, heterogeneous and even heterodox across the spectrum of research topics, research settings, eras examined, and organisational and social contexts.

The historiographical landscape of Accounting History

There are two aspects to the historiographical landscape of AH. One aspect relates to the assemblage of papers in the journal which have a primary purpose to detail methodologies and theories useful for undertaking historical research in accounting. The other dimension refers to the research approaches and theoretical underpinnings of articles reporting the results of studies of particular phenomena, people and practices in connection with accounting’s past.

The methodological landscape

AH has presented a range of papers concerned with historiography and historical method in accounting research. Based on citation statistics,⁵ the three works from AH which are the most heavily cited in other journal articles, books and conference papers are all concerned with historiography, research themes, and settings for historical accounting research. These key papers are Parker’s (1999) “Historiography for the New Millennium: Adventures in Accounting and Management”, Carmona’s (2004) “Accounting History Research and its Diffusion in an International Context”, and Fleischman, Mills and Tyson’s (1996b) “A Theoretical Primer for Evaluating and Conducting Historical Research in Accounting”, with these articles also frequently cited within the triumvirate of specialist accounting history journals in the English language⁶ (see Bisman, 2011, p.173). Each of these articles has helped to inspire researchers by identifying and clarifying gaps in the literature and through outlining means by which accounting historians can tackle research problems.

Over time the research emphasis has shifted to a considerable extent from the descriptive narrative typical of traditional histories (sometimes dubbed ‘old’ accounting histories) where accounting is viewed largely or merely as a technical practice and is investigated in terms of its economic consequences, to other styles of research informed by critical and sociological theories whereby the political, institutional and social implications of accounting are interpreted, expounded or unmasked (usually referred to by the generic term ‘new’ accounting histories). Shifts in historiography have not only functioned to shape, deconstruct and reconstruct our understandings of accounting in respect to the past, but have also engendered lively debate in AH (see Jones, 1999; Maltby, 1999; Parker, 1999; Napier, 2001; Burrows, 2002; Fleischman & Tyson, 2002; Sy & Tinker, 2005; Hooper, 2006; McDonald, 2006; Tyson & Oldroyd, 2007). However, consistent with calls to recognise the usefulness of different historiographies in answering different types of research questions (see Carnegie & Napier, 1996; Funnell, 1996, 1998; Merino, 1998; Fleischman & Radcliffe, 2003; Carmona et al., 2004; Walker, 2008), across a period of 15 years AH has managed to publish an eclectic mix of research articles fashioned according to the ontological and epistemological tenets of traditional, narrative, critical, interpretive and interdisciplinary accounting histories.

The journal has also published several papers that are chiefly concerned with the discussion of particular archives of potential use to accounting historians (e.g. Potter, 2003; Rutterford et al., 2009; Bisman, 2009a; Flesher et al., 2010), together with questioning of “archival antiquarianism” in the discipline (e.g. Sy & Tinker, 2005, p.47). Conforming to recommendations to adopt more liberal interpretations of what can constitute the accounting archive (Miller & Napier, 1993; see Carnegie & Napier 1996), papers published in AH and other germane sources⁷ also discuss or demonstrate the use of sources and collections beyond traditional account books and financial reports. Representative of this form of innovation are studies of portrayals of accounting information or accountants based on fictional literature (e.g. West, 2001; Warnock, 2008), photographs, movies and other visual artefacts (e.g. Beard, 1994; Parker, 1999; Dimnik & Felton, 2006; Davison, 2007; Davison & Warren, 2009), and music (e.g. Zan, 2004; Bettner et al., 2010; Smith & Jacobs, 2011).

Turning to an examination of specific methodologies, Carnegie and Potter (2000b, p.194) contended, inter alia, that “wide scope seems to exist for accounting history scholars to develop the field, especially in biography”, as well as prosopography and institutional history. Among AH’s articles, prosopographies and institutional histories are present, although they remain fairly firmly fixed within the perimeter of the development of professional accounting bodies and their significant participants, but for exceptions see Carnegie and Rodrigues (2007) and Richardson (2008) on the development and institutionalisation of the accounting history community. In contrast, the call for more biographical research appears to have been taken on board by scholars publishing in AH (e.g. Walker, 1996; Pitts, 2001; Anderson, R.H., 2002; Parker, 2002; Craig et al., 2004; Vollmers & Tyson, 2004; Clarke, 2005; Bocqueraz & Walton, 2006; Cooper, 2008; Romeo & Rigsby, 2008; Virtanen, 2009a; Talbot, 2010). Other methods focused on apprehending the experiences of the person have also been adopted in studies appearing in AH. In most cases these methods implicitly reflect (although do not explicitly mention) that a phenomenographic approach (see Marton & Booth, 1997) has been utilised, and include oral and personal histories (e.g. Emery et al., 2002; Baskerville, 2006; Hammond et al., 2007; Lightbody, 2009; Baskerville & Hay, 2010), as well as autobiographical reflections on personal paradigm shifts (e.g. Johnson, 2002; Fleischman, 2004).

Within the compass of methodologies, the use of microhistory as a research approach, particularly useful in the study of accounting in relation to ‘ordinary’ or marginalised individuals and small groups of people, has relied to a considerable extent on Williams’ (1999) article in AH which outlined the applicable methods and exemplified their use through a case study. This agenda-setting methodological paper spawned numerous other such microhistorical studies appearing in AH in the twenty-first century, and which serve as agents to more fully populate accounting’s past (e.g. Vollmers & Tyson, 2004; Abraham, 2008; Lightbody, 2009; Virtanen, 2009a; Hollister & Schultz, 2007, 2010; Samkin, 2010).

The theoretical landscape

Certain types of research, such as biographies, do not comfortably accommodate the adoption of a theoretical perspective or lens, and authors of historiographical works rarely apply theories as their purpose in writing is usually to identify and elucidate perspectives and paradigms rather than interpret particular phenomena or archival materials. However, the enlarging range of methodological approaches reflected in the 15-year accumulation of articles in AH is matched by authors of other forms of articles traversing a more expansive theoretical landscape. While numerous earlier articles in the journal present essentially atheoretical and descriptive narratives, the passage of time has witnessed an increased tendency for studies to apply more sophisticated and varied theoretical and analytical frameworks concomitant with the recognition of the episteme/s underlying new accounting histories. Theories aligned with particular research paradigms have also been used in myriad ways in these articles, with some researchers using a theory (or theories) as a supportive plank, while others have critiqued or even worked to falsify (e.g. Gwilliam et al., 2000) particular theoretical perspectives.

These theoretical and analytical frameworks are typically drawn from literature outside accounting. For example, theories from economics, such as agency theory and contracting cost theory (transaction cost economics), have featured significantly on a longitudinal basis, and in both positive and negative lights in articles in the journal (e.g. Roy & Spraakman, 1996; Spraakman & Davidson, 1998; Gwilliam et al., 2000; Spraakman & Wilkie, 2000; Robb et al., 2006; Keneley, 2008; Bujaki, 2010). Similarly, institutional theory has been well exposed (e.g. De Beedle, 2000; Richardson & Jones, 2007; Keneley, 2008; Romeo & Rigsby, 2008), as has the notion of social capital (e.g. Bryer, 1998; Cordery, 2006; Evans, 2010). The works of Latour, Foucault’s concept of governmentality, and the methods of discourse analysis have been drawn upon (e.g. Baker, 2006; Sargiacomo, 2009; Virtanen, 2009b; Bujaki, 2010) and also figured prominently in papers presented at the journal’s sixth International Conference⁸ (held in 2010) with its focus on accounting and the state (see Appendix 3). Other conceptual frameworks have exclusively attracted criticism, such as contingency theory (e.g. Carmona & Ezzamel, 2006; Gomes, 2008), Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis (Barnes, 2007), and Hegelian philosophy; the latter particularly in respect to women and accounting (e.g. Napier, 2001; Virtanen, 2009a; also see Cooper, 2008, 2010).

Notwithstanding this escalation in theoretical diversity, there are several potentially rich frameworks which have been either comparatively under-utilised or completely overlooked, and could be mobilised (whether supportively or critically) in explorations of accounting’s past. Such other lenses include stakeholder theory (for an exception, see Fowler, 2010), feminist theory, accounting and metaphor (for an exception, see Moerman, 2008), and the work of numerous philosophers or critical theorists including Karl Marx (for an exception, see Bryer, 1998), Jürgen Habermas (for an exception, see Maltby, 2000), Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard.

The geographical landscape of Accounting History

Across the entire first 15 years of AH there is a predominant complement of papers about the “Anglo-Saxon” world, including the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, New Zealand and Canada. However, this transcendence is being increasingly challenged over time via a mounting proportion of articles that examine accounting history in Europe, including a special issue on the theme published in 2009 (see Appendix 2). A flourishing body of the research in AH is now concerned with Italy, Spain, Portugal and France⁹ and research is also starting to emerge in the journal that is connected with the history of accounting in other European nations, such as those in the Nordic region (e.g. Aisbitt, 2008; Virtanen, 2009a, 2009b), German-speaking countries (e.g. Schäffer & Binder, 2008), the Soviet Union and Russia (e.g. Djatej & Sarikas, 2009; Platonova, 2009), and Romania (e.g. Zelinschi, 2009).

The rest of the globe is, as yet, less well-represented, as noted by Walker (2005) in relation to the broader accounting history literature. Several AH articles have settings in Asia, including India (e.g. Black, 2001), Sri Lanka (e.g. Yapa, 2006; Liyanarachchi, 2009), China (e.g. Scorgie & Ji, 1996; Lu & Aiken, 2004) and Japan (e.g. Komori, 2007; Noguchi & Nakajima, 2008). Some have examined Central and South America and the Caribbean (e.g. Fleischman, 2004; Fleischman et al., 2004; Rodrigues et al., 2009; Tyson & Davie, 2009), Africa (such as Sy & Tinker, 2005; Annisette, 2006; Hammond et al., 2007; Samkin, 2010), or the Near East and Middle East, although essentially only in the context of accounting and religion (e.g. Barlev, 2006; Napier, 2009). A promising note is the observation that over two-thirds of this particular group of articles was published in AH in the last five years (2006 to 2010), suggesting that the literature will grow in spatial diversity. There is also a nascent trend where authors are extending their scope to write histories of accounting about countries or regions other than their own.

Comparative international accounting history

In need of redress is the continuing paucity of research on comparative international accounting history (CIAH), despite advocacy for more research of this nature (see Carnegie & Potter, 2000b; Napier 2001; Carnegie & Napier, 1996, 2002; Carmona, 2004). CIAH is focused on “examining and explaining cross-national differences in accounting development” and accounting practices (Carnegie & Napier, 1996, p.27), as distinct from single-country studies. There are certainly numerous examples in AH of papers that have an international flavour, many of which concern historiography and reviews of the literature (e.g. Hammond, 2003; Carmona & Ezzamel, 2006; Evans, 2010), or examine accounting’s professionalisation project (e.g. West, 1996; Birkett & Evans, 2005; Parker, 2005). Additionally, more extended understandings have developed of the transfer and dissemination of accounting technology, usually based on the international transfer of technology framework of Jeremy (1991). The contingent of papers in AH that have examined accounting technology transfer draw international comparisons, although often only implicitly or at a micro level (e.g. Boyns & Edwards, 1996; Foreman, 2001; Samkin, 2010). However, studies specifically situated within the context of CIAH proper are emerging in AH (e.g. Vent & Milne, 1997; Nikitin, 2001; Burrows, 2002; McWatters & Foreman, 2005; Cordery & Baskerville, 2007; Rutterford, 2010).

The sectoral landscape of Accounting History

One of the principal criticisms of the accounting history literature has been its focus on private sector organisations (see Parker, 1993; Carnegie & Napier, 1996; Carnegie & Potter, 2000b), with studies of the public sector thereby rendered almost peripheral. In its earlier years, AH reflected an overwhelming dominance of accounting histories in private sector settings, although there has been substantial relative growth, especially in the last five years, of articles concerning the public sector (e.g. Potter, 1999; Black, 2001; Christensen, 2002; Donoso Anes, 2002; Hooper & Kearins, 2003; Marriott & Fowler, 2007; Funnell, 1997, 2004, 2008; Burrows & Cobbin, 2009; Greer, 2009; Platonova, 2009; Cobbin & Burrows, 2010; Mayer-Sommer, 2010). However, this dichotomisation fails to encompass many of the nuances which have since emerged in the literature, and so a more detailed typology of organisations and institutions is instead provided to enhance understanding of the variety of research settings being progressively examined by accounting historians. Within both the private and public sectors there are significant differentials in the level of attention that has been paid to the primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary, quinary and third sectors based on this more refined taxonomy.

Accounting in the primary sector

The primary sector encompasses activities such as farming, grazing, forestry and extractive industries. Articles published in AH that are set in pastoral and agricultural industries within the primary sector are quite rare (for exceptions, see Carnegie, 2004; Vollmers & Tyson, 2004), with the exception of the body of work examining controlling and accounting for labour (particularly slave labour) on plantations, including Burrows (2002), Fleischman, Oldroyd and Tyson (2004), Fleischman and Tyson (2000, 2002), and Tyson and Davie (2009). While research in AH on extractive industries has garnered considerable scrutiny (e.g. Boyns & Edwards, 1996; Baldwin & Berry, 1999; Vent & Milne, 1997; De Beedle, 2000; Pitts, 1998, 2001; Pitts & Wale, 2008), interest in these industries seems to have waned somewhat over time.

Accounting in the secondary sector

Accounting histories in AH demonstrate a continued, lively interest in the secondary sector of the economy, including construction, especially railroads (e.g. Flesher et al., 2003; Chandar & Miranti, 2005; Heier, 2010), and more particularly in manufacturing organisations (e.g. Williams, 1997; Prieto-Moreno & Larrinaga-González, 2001; McWatters & Foreman, 2005; Kininmonth & McKinstry, 2007; Noguchi & Nakajima, 2008). A number of studies have also examined aspects of accounting in state-run/public factories (e.g. Foreman & Tyson, 1998; Foreman, 2001; Fúnez, 2005; Gutiérrez & Romero, 2007).

Accounting in the tertiary and quaternary sectors

The tertiary sector is comprised of service industries, suppliers and retailers. Quaternary industries are also service-based, but consist of cultural, educational and many government organisations, representing the research, development and “information management” sector (see Cunningham, 2004, p.108). In these two sectors there has been an abundant research effort reflected in the pages of AH connected with accounting’s past in a panoply of organisations, ranging from mercantile firms (e.g. Roy & Spraakman, 1996; Alvarez-Dardet & Capelo, 2003; Hollister & Schultz, 2007; Rodrigues et al., 2009; Virtanen, 2009a), through to service firms, such as telephone companies (e.g. Chandar & Miranti, 2007), shipping companies, banks and insurers (e.g. Walker, 1998b; Gwilliam et al., 2000; McWatters, 2002; Keneley, 2008, 2010), and hospitals (e.g. Bracci et al., 2010), schools (Rodrigues et al., 2004) and universities (e.g. Lord & Robb, 2010).

Accounting in the quinary sector

Depending on the authoritative source selected, the quinary sector subsumes domestic and household activities (see Jones, 1995, p.49) or, more popularly, knowledge discovery and decision making activities at the highest levels in governments, universities, not-for-profits and other organisations (see Pitzl, 2004, pp.201–2). In the quinary sector, and adopting the view that this sector includes domestic activity, there is a comparatively recent interest being shown in household accounts and personal account books. Significant formative examples from the broader literature on accounting history include Walker (1998a), Walker and Llewellyn (2000) and Carnegie and Walker (2007a, 2007b), although few studies of this nature have as yet filtered through to AH (for exceptions see Komori, 2007; Vollmers & Tyson, 2004). In addition to growth in the research quantum concerning private and public sector organisations as distinct research settings, a component of the literature in AH is devoted to examining the interfaces of public institutions with private sector organisations. Such integrative works are generally positioned within the quinary sector when defined as the sector of high-level knowledge development and decision-making. These studies scrutinise the development and influences of public policy in respect to business enterprises and corporations (e.g. Flesher et al., 2003; Rodrigues et al., 2009; Walsh, 2001) or the interfaces of the public sector, including courts of law and legislative bodies, with the accounting profession (e.g. Chandler, 1997; Pong, 1999; Wootton & Moore, 2000; Chandler & Rees, 2005; Teo & Cobbin, 2005). Similarly, as discussed in later sections of this paper, much of the research on accounting’s professional project and on accounting thought can be emplaced within the quinary sector of activity.

Accounting in the third sector

The traditional preference of accounting historians to research organisations in the private sector operated to subordinate not only the public sector, but also the third sector. Third sector organisations span the tertiary, quaternary and quinary sectors. This sector comprises many social institutions, including faith-based, charitable and voluntary organisations, and other forms of private, not-for-profit entities (Salamon & Anheier, 1992). Once comparatively neglected (see Carnegie & Napier, 1996), research on organisations in the third sector has blossomed in AH only in the last few years. While accounting and faith-based organisations is dealt with in a later section of this paper, the variety of research on third sector organisations otherwise appearing in AH has included accounting in the Girl Guides in Australia (Abraham, 2008), a school society in New Zealand (Fowler, 2010), a university tea club in Scotland (Jeacle, 2008), and a philanthropic supply organisation during the American Civil War (Normand & Wootton, 2010). The new and exiguous nature of this cluster of research, together with the limited geographic settings involved, warrants additional studies of third sector organisations in both these and other national and cultural domains.

In conclusion, the sectoral landscape of AH has become more dynamic as time has progressed, illustrated by an increased propensity for authors to branch out through the study of accounting’s history in more novel settings in the private, public and third sectors. Researchers have explored these new horizons in AH through investigations of accountants or the use of accounting information in the circus industry (Cummings & St Leon, 2009), a building yard of the Castello of Crotone in Italy (Mussari & Mussari, 2006), a record company (De Loo & Davis, 2003), the estates of deceased travellers (Donoso Anes, 2002), the Domesday Book (Godfrey & Hooper, 1996; McDonald, 2005), the meat-packing industry (McWatters & Foreman, 2005), The Venerable Society of the Living and the Dead of Parma (Bisaschi, 2003), documents from the English Anglo-Saxon period (Oldroyd, 1997), and through the medium of fictional literature (West, 2001).

The temporal landscape of Accounting History

While numerous accounting historians (e.g. Parker, 1993; Parker, 2001; Carmona, 2004) have recommended that historical studies of accounting practices are needed which transcend “the age of modernity” (Walker, 2005, p.233), the literature demonstrates a continued fixation with the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, given that a majority of papers published in AH are rooted in this era. This finding may reflect perceptions of the lack of availability of rich archives concerning accounting in earlier periods, as well as the relative infancy of certain nations (other than in respect to Indigenous peoples) such as the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. However, research in AH which is based on people, organisations and events in the UK is also overwhelmingly situated in periods from the nineteenth century onward, despite the potential for studies to be undertaken which are located in earlier timeframes (for exceptions, see Boyns & Edwards, 1996; Godfrey & Hooper, 1996; Oldroyd, 1997; Parker, R.H., 1997; Williams, 1999; McDonald, 2005; Funnell, 2008). Unusually, there are in aggregate slightly more articles about accounting in the USA and Australia that are set, in all or part, in eras prior to the nineteenth century (e.g. Scorgie & Reiss, 1997; Wootton & Moore, 2000; Craig et al., 2004; Fleischman et al., 2004; Hollister & Schultz, 2007; Bloom & Solotko, 2004, 2008; Bisman, 2009a) than there are similar articles set in the UK. For other nations, articles vary more widely across the temporal landscape, with those about accounting in Italy spanning the fourteenth to twentieth centuries, from the sixteenth century onwards concerning Spain, and in ancient times in Africa (e.g. Sy & Tinker, 2005; Annisette, 2006) and Asia (Lu & Aiken, 2004; e.g. Liyanarachchi, 2009).

The topical landscape of Accounting History

The topical landscape of AH embraces each of the landscapes previously described, since accounting and accounting history are contextually embedded. Choices about methodology, theory, place, time, setting and sector are often at the forefront of, and not merely a backdrop to, many of the articles published in the journal. However, there remain numerous major themes in the literature which require topical classification. Examining the topical landscape of AH across its first 15 years also provides an opportunity to further consider enduring issues of research interest, lines of enquiry which have been largely abandoned, significant emerging themes, and under-researched areas.

Accounting’s professional project

A plethora of work in AH reports on investigations concerning professionalisation and accounting’s professional project (e.g. Anderson, 1996; Emery et al., 2002; Birkett & Evans, 2005; Doron, 2009; Cooper, 2010). Following West’s (1996) article in AH, which provided a comparative international review on the topic, most subsequent papers embraced West’s (1996) suggestions to investigate political, social, class and gender-related aspects of professionalisation. As time has passed, AH authors have extended their reach in investigating professional accounting bodies beyond considerations of the genesis, construction or constituents of these associations. Researchers have forwarded the agenda in exploring the quest for professional legitimacy and the branding and image-management activities of professional bodies (e.g. Romeo & Leauby, 2004; Abeysekera, 2005; Parker, 2005; Lee, 2006; Richardson & Jones, 2007), their responses to external crises (Walker, 1996; e.g. Chandler, 1997; Keenan, 2000), and tensions and conflicts with other bodies, stakeholders and professional groups (e.g. Pong, 1999; McClelland & Stanton, 2004; e.g. Lee, 2010). This work has also been augmented within AH by inquiry into the development and functioning of professional accounting bodies beyond the Anglo-Saxon world (e.g. Barbadillo et al., 2000; Yapa, 2006; Zelinschi, 2009) as suggested by West (1996, p.94). Further, some articles examine changes and challenges to the profession from the perspective of public accounting firms and their staff (e.g. Wootton et al., 2003; Baskerville, 2006; Hammond et al., 2007; Baskerville & Hay, 2010). Interest in research about the professionalisation of accounting will continue, and a forthcoming special issue (c. 2013) of the journal will target ‘The Evolution of Accounting as a Global Profession’ (see Appendix 2).

Accounting and government

The historical study of accounting in the public sector has been overviewed from a sectoral perspective earlier in this paper, however there are topical facets of this theme deserving of additional discussion. The acknowledged deficiency of work in the area (Parker, 1993) has been redressed in AH, and special issues of the journal (see Appendix 2) concerning organisations in the public sector are forthcoming, including a double issue dedicated to ‘Accounting and the State’ arising from the journal’s sixth Accounting History International Conference (6AHIC) on the theme (see Appendix 3). However, most studies in AH which feature a public sector setting, target the role of accounting in the action of central government, with a noticeable dearth of research about accounting in local government (for an exception see Sargiacomo, 2006), thereby prompting a further forthcoming special issue on ‘Accounting and Accountability in Local Government’ (see Appendix 2).

Among the corpus of literature in AH on accounting and government is a concern for the production and use of accounting information by or for Treasuries and The Crown in varied periods and nations, such as Norman England (e.g. Godfrey & Hooper, 1996; McDonald, 2005; Hooper, 2006), post-revolutionary France (e.g. Nikitin, 2001), sixteenth-century Spain (Donoso Anes, 2002), sixteenth-century Italy (Mussari & Mussari, 2006), and Imperial Russia (Platonova, 2009). Other authors have studied accounting’s role and influence in processes of public sector reform, largely in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the USA (McMillan, 1998), Australia (Potter, 1999; Christensen, 2002), and the UK (Funnell, 2004, 2008; Burrows & Cobbin, 2009). Another area, and one in which there is more work to be done, is the development and operation of accounting systems in government departments and entities (e.g. Foreman & Tyson, 1998; Black, 2001), including public organisations connected with defence and the military (e.g. Foreman, 2001).

Accounting histories about the military, as a specific sub-set of government, are also witnessing a period of growth. AH’s authors have probed the military origins of the modern-day public sector audit (Funnell, 1997), the impact of naval experience on accounting in the penal colony of New South Wales (Scorgie & Reiss, 1997), and Soviet accounting developments in the World War II period (Djatej & Sarikas, 2009). Moreover, this theme was energised with a special issue of the journal on ‘Accounting and the Military’ (see Appendix 2), featuring five papers, all set in the nineteenth century, concerning the uses and roles of accounting in the American Civil War (Heier, 2010; Mayer-Sommer, 2010), the British Military (Cobbin & Burrows, 2010; Talbot, 2010), and the construction of defensive works in Canada (Bujaki, 2010).

Accounting and audit – policy and regulation

Research landscapes and directions connected with accounting, audit, and public and professional policy and regulation enjoy continued vitality in AH. A succession of special issues of AH (see Appendix 2) has showcased the variety of work in these areas, including ‘Accounting, Regulation and the Law’, ‘Accounting in Crises’, and ‘Accounting and Audit Failure within Corporate Collapse’. The stock in trade of this theme of research is the responses or reactions of law and policy makers and accounting standard setting bodies to crises, criticisms and weaknesses of practices in financial accounting and disclosure, and auditing. Therefore, under the umbrella of this theme there is frequently a demonstrable connection with other topical landscapes in AH, including accounting and government, and accounting and the profession.

An appreciable group of articles in AH has examined the effects of legislative change and the judiciary on accounting and auditing practice. Among these papers are those spotlighting historical issues of auditor legal liability and auditor independence (e.g. Chandler, 1997; Dunn & Sikka, 1998; Barbadillo et al., 2000; Baker & Prentice, 2008), the influences of accounting and accountants on the work of the courts (e.g. McKinstry et al., 2002; Doron, 2009), and judicial views on accounting and audit (e.g. Bryer, 1998; Wootton & Moore, 2000; Chandler & Rees, 2005; Teo & Cobbin, 2005). Others have investigated the development of accounting, audit and corporate legislation (e.g. Maltby, 1998, 2000; Walker, 1998b; Heier et al., 2005) and the accounting implications of tax law and tax policy (e.g. Walsh, 2001; Hooper & Kearins, 2003, 2004; Marriott & Fowler, 2007).

Aligned within the broader perspective of the studies noted above, are articles in AH that investigate the historical roles, processes or central figures of accounting standard setting and advisory bodies in the quest for improved national or supranational regulation of external reporting (e.g. Bocqueraz & Walton, 2006; Noke, 2007; Aisbitt, 2008) and the development and regulation of select methods of reporting and disclosure frameworks (e.g. Johnson & Potter, 1997; Pitts, 1998; Bernal Lloréns, 2000; De Beedle, 2000; Cordery & Baskerville, 2007; Noguchi & Nakajima, 2008; Virtanen, 2009b; Normand & Wootton, 2010). Finally, there is a small group of papers in which the chief focus is mendacious or creative accounting reports (e.g. Baldwin & Berry, 1999; Rutherford, 1999; Williams, 1999).

In summary, whereas concern has been expressed elsewhere in the accounting history literature that histories of financial accounting are in abatement (see Anderson, M., 2002; Walker, 2006), they appear to be alive and well within the content of AH, although there is a continuing shortage of studies of financial accounting and auditing set in the public sector.

Cost and management accounting

Some other landscapes are also thought to have become less fashionable, such as historical research related to cost and management accounting (see Walker, 2008, p.301). However, in AH this theme has been an enduring one, stretching across the areas of scientific management and cost accounting, management accounting and management control, production accounting, industrial accounting and performance measurement. The journal has published two review articles on advances in theory, literature and practice in these areas – one in respect to developments in Italy (Antonelli et al., 2009) and the other on the connections of management accounting and the discipline of ‘controlling’ in German-speaking nations (Schäffer & Binder, 2008). Unsurprisingly, the manufacturing organisation is the most common setting for organisational studies of cost and management accounting (e.g. Williams, 1997; Foreman & Tyson, 1998; Foreman, 2001; Prieto-Moreno & Larrinaga-González, 2001; Fúnez, 2005; McWatters & Foreman, 2005; Gutiérrez & Romero, 2007; Kininmonth & McKinstry, 2007), although some articles are set in the mining industry (e.g. Boyns & Edwards, 1996; Vent & Milne, 1997; Pitts & Wale, 2008), service industry (Chandar & Miranti, 2007), and entertainment (Cummings & St Leon, 2009), together with a suite of related articles on the Hudson’s Bay Company (Roy & Spraakman, 1996; Spraakman & Davidson, 1998; Spraakman & Wilkie, 2000). Another pool of the research examines the military origins and applications of cost and management accounting practices (e.g. Lemarchand, 2002; Bujaki, 2010; Cobbin & Burrows, 2010; Mayer-Sommer, 2010).

Accounting change

Although many accounting histories examine how and why accounting has changed, the core mission of some studies is to unravel and chronicle the nature and process of change itself – either how a single incident brought about accounting change or how a multiplicity of factors contributed to change. Examples of articles in AH in which accounting change is at the fore include the McWatters (1998) study of lagging rather than leading accounting change in response to the introduction of new companies legislation in Canada in 1907, multiple influences on accounting change in a small family company in Spain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Alvarez-Dardet & Capelo, 2003), and discussion of observations on the linkages between accounting change and the changing language of accounting by Evans (2010), with numerous further papers previously discussed in reference to other topical landscapes (e.g. Lemarchand, 2002; Bocqueraz & Walton, 2006; Aisbitt, 2008; Djatej & Sarikas, 2009). In some works of this type in both AH and the wider set of accounting periodicals, the notion of accounting change has been viewed, explicitly or implicitly, as synonymous or contiguous with accounting ‘progress’ or accounting ‘evolution’. In a cogent article in AH, Napier (2001) considered the problematics of accounting change being viewed as demonstrative of accounting ‘evolution’ or accounting ‘progress’, given that both evolution and progress are presumptive of an improvement rather than merely an alteration to some previous state. Nevertheless, questions of change versus progress/evolution have persisted as a subject of controversy in AH (e.g. Jones, 1999; Maltby, 1998, 1999; see Gomes, 2008).

Accounting and the rise and demise of organisations

Studies which are most likely to closely blend aspects of professionalisation, accounting and government, accounting policy and regulation, and aspects of cost and management accounting are those mapping the construction and rise and/or the destruction and demise of organisations. Echoing calls to embrace interdisciplinarity in researching accounting’s past (see Guthrie & Parker, 2006; Walker, 2005, 2008), these studies also tend to import perspectives and insights from the field of business history. AH has presented a healthy collection of these works, set in disparate organisations and contexts – automobile manufacture (Fogarty & Dirsmith, 2005), professional accounting bodies (Walker, 1996; Richardson & Jones, 2007), shipping (McWatters, 2002), the music recording industry (De Loo & Davis, 2003), family business (Robb et al., 2006), life insurance companies (Keneley, 2008, 2010), public accounting firms (Wootton et al., 2003; Baskerville & Hay, 2010), and railroads (Heier, 2010).

Accounting thought, accounting ‘firsts’, accounting education

Underlying all areas of accounting and accounting history is the influence of noteworthy accounting academics, pioneers and practitioners on the development of accounting thought, theory and technology. Studies of these personalities are often crafted as analyses of their publications, with such articles in AH dissecting focal works that were published in the fifteenth century (e.g. McCarthy, Sangster & Stoner (2008) on Pacioli’s treatise), through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (e.g. Scorgie & Ji, 1996; Parker, R.H., 1997) and on to those published in the twenty-first century (e.g. Burrows, 2003; Lee, 2005). Biographies have also been favoured as a means for elucidating the contributions of relevant individuals (e.g. Pitts, 2001; e.g. Anderson, R.H., 2002; Parker, 2002; Clarke, 2005; Bocqueraz & Walton, 2006), although some authors have instead approached the topic of accounting thought by examining bodies of scholarly work dealing with the development of particular accounting principles or concepts, such as periodicity and depreciation (e.g. Luther, 2003; Wright, 2006).

Allied with work on accounting thought and accounting education is the area of accounting ‘firsts’. The notion of accounting ‘firsts’ usually takes the form of claims about the first book to describe a particular accounting practice, the first organisation or individual to implement an accounting method, or the first professor or university to teach an accounting course. In AH, Carnegie and Williams (2001, p.103) pointed out that often the study of ‘firsts’ may “narrow perspectives on accounting’s past”. There has been a quite apparent change in the literature in respect to the manner in which researchers study accounting “firsts”. From the twenty-first century onwards in AH, the research subjects and settings typically the focus of “firsts” have been investigated in more refined contexts within the complex of institutional, professional, political and social forces of the relevant time and place (e.g. Carnegie & Williams, 2001; Parker, 2002; Craig et al., 2004; Clarke, 2005; Rodrigues et al., 2004, 2007; Romeo & Rigsby, 2008).

While research about accounting thinkers and academicians has retained the interest of scholars, histories of accounting education (e.g. Napier, 2011) or of the roles and contributions of accounting history as a component of accounting and business education (see Previts et al., 1990a, p.3; Richardson, 2008, p.268) are fragmentary, and AH papers tackling these issues are scarce. Exceptions include Fleming, Graci and Thompson’s (2004) overview of accounting education and analysis of first year accounting textbooks in the USA in the early twentieth century, Lord and Robb’s (2010) coverage of accounting education at the University of Canterbury in terms of the participation of women, and Rodrigues, Gomes and Craig (2004) and Rodrigues, Craig and Gomes’ (2007) investigations of the Portuguese School of Commerce from the mid-eighteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries. However, work on how and why accounting history should and can be incorporated into accounting education programs is virtually absent from AH at this stage, although articles on the topic do appear from time to time in Accounting Historians Journal.¹⁰ There is, in consequence, ample scope for research on the subject and of potential publication opportunities in AH, offering the additional pragmatic and pedagogical boon of providing illustrative examples and guidance to educators in enlivening and enriching today’s accounting curriculum.

Accounting, “othering” and the unfamiliar

“Othering” refers to the process of oppression, subjugation and exploitation of persons, individually or collectively, and usually on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or religion (see Gabriel, 2008 pp.213–14), with accounting historians examining how accounting facilitates or is implicated and complicit in this construction of the “other”. A focal article in AH which overviewed and reviewed this research was Hammond’s (2003) “History from Accounting’s Margins: International Research on Race and Gender”. Hammond (2003, p.9) makes the case to not only study accounting from history’s margins, but to also maintain a “focus on how this research can help ameliorate current oppressive conditions in which accounting plays a role”. This calls for realising the critical and emancipatory potential of historical accounting research on race and gender. Adding to further conversations about accounting and the “other” were a 2007 special issue of the journal on “International Perspectives on Race and Gender in Accounting’s Past”, followed in 2009 by “Accounting in Other Places, Accounting by Other Peoples” (see Appendix 2). The 2009 volume was published as the first double issue of the journal and comprised eight articles, with numerous papers from this issue discussed elsewhere in the current article (i.e. Cummings & St Leon, 2009; Djatej & Sarikas, 2009; Liyanarachchi, 2009; Napier, 2009).

The territory covered in AH articles concerning the “other” has been vast in exploring the interconnections of accounting, race, colonialism, marginalisation and oppression. For example, Hammond, Arnold and Clayton (2007) investigated a South African accounting firm’s experiences in dealing with the move away from the apartheid system. The authors were critical of an official history published on the subject firm which appeared to ignore obvious silences in the firm’s past. This form of study, which is motivated by and appropriately challenges official histories, is under-represented in the literature and offers a fruitful area of inquiry for researchers. Lippman and Wilson (2007) examined the culpability of accounting in the Holocaust during World War II, connecting with other themes of accounting and the military, and accounting and religion. De Loo and Davis (2003) exposed that racism, together with accounting and management issues, played a part in the demise of an African-American small business, while Craig, Ó Hógartaigh and Ó Hógartaigh (2004) challenged unflattering, prejudiced and stereotypical views of the Irish during the first 30 years of British colonial New South Wales.

Beyond this wide-ranging collection of settings, peoples, and organisations is a more homogenous group of work in AH (and the accounting history literature more generally), which is concerned with accounting and the valuation and control of slave or indentured labour (e.g. Burrows, 2002; Fleischman & Tyson, 2000, 2002; Fleischman et al., 2004; Tyson & Davie, 2009). One of the key authors, Fleischman (2004, p.12), typified his experiences of researching in this area in a personalised account in AH entitled “Confronting Moral Issues from Accounting’s Dark Side” in which he concludes that:

Ultimately, the impetus for my movement in more critical directions has been my current project to study the seamier side of accounting – episodes in our discipline’s past where either accounting or accounting practitioners stand accused of participation in repressive regimes or dishonest actions.

Another area of accounting history and the “other” is the literature on Indigenous peoples, which remains critically under-researched (see Buhr, 2011), although AH has featured key articles on the theme – Greer’s (2009) study of accounting in the service of social engineering regarding Australian Aboriginal women, and the work of Hooper and Kearins (2004) on tax (and racial) discrimination against New Zealand’s Maori landowners. As Buhr (2011, pp.139–40) suggests, future work in this area could not only examine accounting’s role in dispossessing Indigenous peoples, but also in empowering them (pp.139–40).

In a similar vein, although in the context of African accounting history, in the AH article “People and Periods Untouched by Accounting History: An Ancient Yoruba Practice”, Annisette (2006, pp.409–10) emphasised that accounting history should encompass not only study of the “other”, but also of the “truly unfamiliar”, including the re-casting of oppressed groups as survivors instead of victims in order to realise how “structures of domination” can be transformed (pp.409–10). One of the latest AH papers on accounting and slavery (Hollister & Schultz, 2010) approaches the topic by embodying such emerging opinions, examining slave labour in northern antebellum America, which is contrasted with the conditions that prevailed in the south, and provides an example of how for one slave “accounting seemingly served as a means for establishing his own economic identity after emancipation” (p.401).

Turning to women and accounting, formative work from AOS, such as Lehman (1992) and Kirkham and Loft (1993), underpin many of the AH articles foregrounding gender issues and accounting. These articles are clustered towards the last five years of the journal’s publishing history, strongly suggestive of not only a rapid increase of interest, but the prospect of continued advancement of knowledge in the area. AH’s contributions to research on accounting and gender cover the struggles of women accountants in gaining recognition and equitable treatment in the profession and the workplace (e.g. Emery et al., 2002; Lightbody, 2009; Cooper, 2008, 2010; Lord & Robb, 2010), women and accounting in business and the home (Komori, 2007; Virtanen, 2009a), women and investment (Rutterford & Maltby, 2007; Rutterford et al., 2009), the role of accounting in women’s organisations (e.g. Abraham, 2008; Jeacle, 2008), and the gendered nature of account books (Hollister & Schultz, 2007).

Accounting and religion

Research on accounting and religion is “remarkably sparse” and in an “embryonic state” (Carmona & Ezzamel, 2006, p.117), although the publication of a special issue of AH devoted to the theme (see Appendix 2) was well subscribed by authors. AH’s contributions to accounting and religion feature analysis or exegesis of Judaeo-Christian texts and discourse about concepts of wealth, stewardship and accountability (e.g. Baker, 2006; Barlev, 2006; Moerman, 2008). There is a slightly larger group of studies that look at the roles of accounting in Christian houses of religion (e.g. monasteries) or other organisations associated with the church, often canvassing the tensions between the divine or sacred and the emplacement or perception of accounting as part of the secular or profane (e.g. Álvarez-Dardet Espejo et al., 2006; Cordery, 2006; Prieto et al., 2006; Riccaboni et al., 2006).

There is, however, a paucity of historical research connected with accounting and other religions and belief systems (see Walker, 2008, p.306). In AH, two articles move outside the mould, including Napier’s (2009) review in which he concludes that “historical research into ‘Islamic accounting’ is only beginning to emerge in English-language sources” (p.122), and Liyanarachchi’s (2009) study of the role of accounting and audit in Sri Lankan Buddhist monasteries from the ninth to the eleventh centuries.

Charting the future landscape of Accounting History

Across the 1996 to 2010 timeframe, this discussion of Accounting History (AH) has provided some conclusions about which lines of enquiry have been abandoned or are in relative hiatus, which research areas are burgeoning, and what priorities need to be addressed in the future. During the first 15 years as an international refereed journal, AH has played a critical role in advancing scholarship in the discipline. The journal has served to aid in internationalising our views of accounting’s past, focus our attention on broadening the settings, sectors and timeframes within which we conduct our research, explicate a plurality of research perspectives, historiographies and theoretical positions, and significantly contribute to the enhancement of diversity in our field of inquiry. The demonstrated progress made in growing our discipline and its scholarly community suggests a very positive prognosis for AH. While there remain areas and issues which we are yet to more adequately explore, particularly in reference to comparative international accounting history and contextualised historical studies of accounting concerning other people, other places, other religions and other epochs, the landscape of accounting’s past in AH is both visible and increasingly wide-ranging in the ways that we view the archive, deploy contrasting research paradigms, and address inclusivity in terms of research themes.

Along with heterogeneity apparent within and across the chosen landscapes visited in this paper is the matter of author diversity, since the latter holds promise for further encouraging the former. In 2000, Carnegie and Potter (2000b, p.185) reported that Accounting, Business & Financial History (now Accounting History Review) was the least “parochial” of the three specialist English-language accounting history journals in terms of authorship patterns. A decade later, a further study involving assessment of the same three journals (Baños Sánchez-Matamoros & Gutiérrez-Hidalgo, 2010, p.136) revealed that, “regarding the nationalities of the authors, the most ‘cosmopolitan’ journal was AH”. This less monocultural cadre of authors is also mirrored by the trend for the settings of research studies to extend beyond Anglo-American nations. Only 9.5 per cent of studies in AH’s first five years concerned accounting in nations outside the “Anglo-Saxon” world, increasing to 17 per cent in the 2001 to 2005 period, and to over 33 per cent in the journal’s last five years.

Directly connected with the issue of author diversity are gender differences in publishing patterns in the accounting history literature. Carnegie, McWatters and Potter (2003, p.201) suggest that exploring gender differences in this context involves the consideration of both feminist viewpoints and the voice of women. This voice can be perceived not only in work where women are the research subjects or foci, but also by means of the participation of female accounting historians as authors. The proportion of women publishing in AH has changed markedly across the journal’s first 15 years. As sole or joint authors, women accounted for less than 18 per cent of all authors in the journal’s first five years (1996–2000), rising slightly to 23 per cent in the next five years (2001–2005), and then making a sizeable leap to over 44 per cent in the last five years (2006–2010).

The landscape of AH is driven by the choices made by authors, and the dovetailing of emerging issues with the themes of the journal’s Accounting History International Conferences (AHIC), including the special issues of the journal (of which there were eight in the period 1996 to 2010 – see Appendix 2) which often comprise selected papers presented at successive AHIC (see Appendix 3). Special issues provide editors with the ability to guide the literature in distinct ways. Publishing regular issues alone implicitly puts more control or responsibility in the hands of authors and readers who may or may not be able to influence the readership or the future shape of the literature through individual works. AH’s landscapes, and those of accounting history more broadly, are also impacted by other relevant journals, both those within the specialism and those generalist accounting journals that publish feature articles or entire special issues on accounting history. Influences on AH also include papers which offer reviews and critiques, or project directions and make calls for change in historical research in accounting. While we progressively know more about the dimensions of the literature by virtue of such works and through the publication of articles which examine publishing patterns in the accounting history literature, it is possible that authors may not receive the agenda-setting messages that are typically sent. Therefore, together with the intent of the current article to overview AH’s first 15 years, the clear pinpointing of voids in the literature, as identified in this paper, should be of assistance to authors.

The landscape of AH has been, and will remain, mutable. As reported in the UK newspaper The Guardian (Abrahams, 2009, p.10), which offered commentary on three accounting papers of which two appeared in AH (Parker, 1999, and Cummings & St Leon, 2009): “The supposedly staid, unglamorous field of accounting is in fact packed, to some degree, with exciting adventures. But accountants rarely divulge this fact to persons outside the profession”.

The benchmark is set and the challenge is for AH is to continue to publish research about “exciting adventures” in accounting history, while maintaining the quality and integrity of AH as a leading accounting journal. The journal can also act as a conduit or “change agent” to get the word out and demonstrate that “accounting history matters”, for our colleagues around the globe, in our universities, and into the broader practitioner, business, political and social landscapes (see Gomes et al., 2011) that can derive benefit (borrowing from Carnegie & Napier, 1996) from the insights into accounting’s present and future offered by its past.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 3.

Accounting History International Conferences (AHIC)

Conference	Year	Location
1 AHIC	1999	Melbourne, Australia
2 AHIC	2001	Osaka, Japan
3 AHIC	2003	Siena, Italy
4 AHIC	2005	Braga, Portugal
5 AHIC*	2007	Banff, Canada
6 AHIC^#	2010	Wellington, New Zealand

Notes: *Conference theme – Accounting in other places, accounting by other peoples. ^#Conference theme – Accounting and the state

Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks are offered to the Editors, Professors Garry Carnegie and Brian West, for the opportunity to undertake this study of the journal, and for the helpful feedback received on the paper from the Editors and the two anonymous reviewers.

Notes

References

Abeysekera

(2005), “Accountancy: In Crisis or Ascendancy?”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.3, pp.71–87.

Abraham

(2008), “The Struggle to Develop Accounting Practices in the Australian Girl Guides, 1945–9: A Microhistorical Study”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.1, pp.101–20.

Abrahams

(2009), “Great Adventures in Accounting”, The Guardian, 12 May, p.10.

Aisbitt

(2008), “Implementation of Supra-National Policies: Lessons from the Nordic Countries’ Experiences of European Directives”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.1, pp.75–99.

Alvarez-Dardet

Capelo

(2003), “Contractual Relationships and Accounting Change: The Case of Agüera Wholesalers, 1770–1835”, Accounting History, Vol.8 No.1, pp.61–88.

Álvarez-Dardet Espejo

López Manjón

Sánchez-Matamoros

J.B.

(2006), “Accounting at the Boundaries of the Sacred: The Regulation of the Spanish Brotherhoods in the Eighteenth Century”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.2, pp.129–50.

Amernic

Elitzur

(1992), “Using Historical Annual Reports in Teaching: Letting the Past Benefit the Present”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.19, No.1, pp.29–50.

Anderson

(2002) “An Analysis of the First Ten Volumes of Research in Accounting, Business & Financial History”, Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol.12, No.1, pp.1–24.

Anderson

R.H.

(1996), “The Transfer of Cost Accounting Institutions to New Zealand”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.2, pp.79–93.

10.

Anderson

R.H.

(2002), “Leslie Arthur Schumer: Australian Cost Accounting Crusader and Historian”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.1, pp.59–78.

11.

Annisette

(2006), “People and Periods Untouched by Accounting History: An Ancient Yoruba Practice”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.4, pp.399–417.

12.

Antonelli

Boyns

Cerbioni

(2009), “The Development of Cost Accounting in Italy, c.1800 to c.1940”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.4, pp.465–507.

13.

Baker

C.R.

(2006), “Towards a Genealogy of Wealth through an Analysis of Biblical Discourses”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.2, pp.151–71.

14.

Baker

C.R.

Prentice

(2008), “The Origins of Auditor Liability to Third Parties under United States Common Law”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.2, pp.163–82.

15.

Baldwin

T.J.

Berry

R.H.

(1999), “The Measurement of Nineteenth Century Accounting Error: Cases from the British Coal Industry 1864–1900”, Accounting History, Vol.4, No.1, pp.79–98.

16.

Baños Sánchez-Matamoros

Gutiérrez-Hidalgo

(2010), “Patterns of Accounting History Literature: Movements at the Beginning of the 21st Century”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.37, No.2, pp.123–44.

17.

Barbadillo

E.R.

Humphrey

Garcia Benau

M.A.

(2000), “Auditors versus Third Parties and Others: The Unusual Case of the Spanish Audit Liability ‘Crisis’”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.2, pp.119–48.

18.

Barlev

(2006), “A Biblical Statement of Accountability”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.2, pp.173–97.

19.

Barnes

(2007), “Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis, Information Asymmetry and Accounting Information: The UK Financial Crises of 1866 and 1987”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.1, pp.29–53.

20.

Baskerville

(2006), “Professional Closure by Proxy: The Impact of Changing Educational Requirements on Class Mobility for a Cohort of Big 8 Partners”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.3, pp.289–317.

21.

Baskerville

R.F.

Hay

(2010), “The Impact of Globalization on Professional Accounting Firms: Evidence from New Zealand”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.3, pp.285–308.

22.

Beard

(1994), “Popular Culture and Professional Identity: Accountants in the Movies”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.19, No.3, pp.303–18.

23.

Bernal Lloréns

(2000), “The Crisis of 1847–1848 and the Regulation of Company Accounting in Spain”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.2, pp.13–30.

24.

Bettner

M.S.

Frandsen

A-C.

McGoun

E.G.

(2010), “Listening to Accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol.21, No.4, pp.294–302.

25.

Birkett

W.P.

Evans

(2005), “Theorising Professionalisation: A Model for Organising and Understanding Histories of the Professionalising Activities of Occupational Associations of Accountants”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.1, pp.99–127.

26.

Bisaschi

(2003), “The Accounting System of the Venerable Society of the Living and the Dead in Parma in Medieval Times”, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.1, pp.89–111.

27.

Bisman

J.E.

(2009a), “The Census as Accounting Artefact: A Research Note with Illustrations from the Early Australian Colonial Period”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.3, pp.293-314.

28.

Bisman

J.E.

(2009b), “Making Accounting Historians”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.36, No.1, pp.135–62.

29.

Bisman

J.E.

(2011), “Cite and Seek: Exploring Accounting History through Citation Analysis of the Specialist Accounting History Journals, 1996 to 2008”, Accounting History, Vol.16, No.2, pp.161–83.

30.

Black

(2001), “A More Vigorous Prosecution of Public Works: The Reforms of the Indian Public Works Department”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.2, pp.91–119.

31.

Bloom

Solotko

(2004) “Barter Accounting in the US During the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.1, pp.91–108.

32.

Bloom

Solotko

(2008), “Elucidating Needs, Lifestyles, and Community: Researching a Late Eighteenth-century Account Book from Lexington, Virginia”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.3, pp.333–52.

33.

Bocqueraz

Walton

(2006), “Creating a Supranational Institution: The Role of the Individual and the Mood of the Times”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.3, pp.271–88.

34.

Boyns

Edwards

J.R.

(1996), “Change Agents and the Dissemination of Accounting Technology: Wales’ Basic Industries, c.1750–c.1870”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.1, pp.9–34.

35.

Bracci

Maran

Vagnoni

(2010), “Saint Anna’s Hospital in Ferrara, Italy: Accounting and Organizational Change during the Devolution”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.4, pp.463–504.

36.

Bryer

R.A.

(1998), “The Laws of Accounting in Late Nineteenth Century Britain”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.1, pp.55–94.

37.

Buhr

(2011), “Indigenous People in the Accounting Literature: Time for a Plot Change and Some Canadian Suggestions”, Accounting History, Vol.16, No.2, pp.139–60.

38.

Bujaki

M.L.

(2010), “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Correspondence Related to Building the Rideau Canal”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.2, pp.229–51.

39.

Burrows

(2002), “The Interface of Race and Accounting: A Comment and Extension”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.1, pp.101–13.

40.

Burrows

Cobbin

(2009), “Controlling Government Expenditure by External Review: The 1921–2 ‘Geddes Axe’”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.3, pp.199–220.

41.

Burrows

G.H.

(2003), “Louis Goldberg and A Journey into Accounting Thought”, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.1, pp.113–24.

42.

Camfferman

(1997), “An Overview of Recent Dutch-language Publications in Accounting, Business and Financial History in the Netherlands”, Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol.7, No.1, pp.105–36.

43.

Carlyle

(1840), On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, London: Chapman and Hall.

44.

Carmona

(2004), “Accounting History Research and its Diffusion in an International Context”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.3, pp.7–23.

45.

Carmona

(2006), “Performance Reviews, the Impact of Accounting Research, and the Role of Publication Forms”, Advances in Accounting, Vol.22, pp.241–67.

46.

Carmona

Ezzamel

(2006), “Accounting and Religion: A Historical Perspective”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.2, pp.117–27.

47.

Carmona

Ezzamel

Gutiérrez

(2004), “Accounting History Research: Traditional and New Accounting History Perspectives”, De Computis, No.1, December, pp.24–53.

48.

Carmona

Zan

(2002), “Mapping Variety in the History of Accounting and Management Practices”, European Accounting Review, Vol.11, No.2, pp.291–304.

49.

Carnegie

G.D.

(1996), “Editorial”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.1, pp.5–7.

50.

Carnegie

(2004). “Re-examining the Determinants of Barter Accounting in Isolated Communities in Colonial Societies”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.3, pp.73–87.

51.

Carnegie

G.D.

(2006), “Editorial”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.1, pp.5–6.

52.

Carnegie

G.D.

McWatters

C.S.

Potter

B.N.

(2003), “The Development of the Specialist Accounting History Literature in the English Language: An Analysis by Gender”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.16, No.2, pp.186–207.

53.

Carnegie

Napier

C.J.

(1996), “Critical and Interpretive Histories: Insights into Accounting’s Present and Future Through its Past”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.9, No.3, pp.7–39.

54.

Carnegie

G.D.

Napier

C.J.

(2002), “Exploring Comparative International Accounting History”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.15, No.5, pp.689–718.

55.

Carnegie

G.D.

Napier

C.J.

(2011), “Accounting’s Past, Present and Future: The Necessity for History”, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand Annual Conference, Darwin, Australia, 3–5 July.

56.

Carnegie

Potter

B.N.

(2000a), “Accounting History in Australia: A Survey of Published Works, 1975–99”, Australian Economic History Review, Vol.40, No.3, pp.287–313.

57.

Carnegie

G.D.

Potter

B.N.

(2000b), “Publishing Patterns in Specialist Accounting History Journals in the English Language 1996–1999”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.27, No.2, pp.177–98.

58.

Carnegie

G.D.

Rodrigues

L.L.

(2007), “Exploring the Dimensions of the International Accounting History Community”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.4, pp.441–64.

59.

Carnegie

G.D.

Walker

S.P.

(2007a), “Household Accounting in Australia: A Microhistorical Study”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.20, No.2, pp.210–36.

60.

Carnegie

G.D.

Walker

S.P.

(2007b), “Household Accounting in Australia: Prescription and Practice from the 1820s to the 1960s”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.20, No.1, pp.41–73.

61.

Carnegie

G.D.

Williams

B.G.

(2001), “The First Professors of Accounting in Australia”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.1, pp.103–15.

62.

Carnegie

G.D.

Wolnizer

P.W.

(1996), Accounting History Newsletter 1980–1989 and Accounting History 1989–1994: A Tribute to Robert William Gibson, New York: Garland.

63.

Chandar

Miranti

P.J.

(2005), “Information, Institutions and Agency: The Crisis of Railroad Finance in the 1890s and the Evolution of Corporate Oversight Capabilities”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.2, pp.7–33.

64.

Chandar

Miranti

P.J.

(2007), “The Development of Actuarial-based Pension Accounting at the Bell System, 1913–1940”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.2, pp.205–34.

65.

Chandler

R.A.

(1997), “Judicial Views on Auditing from the Nineteenth Century”, Accounting History, Vol.2, No.1, pp.61–80.

66.

Chandler

R.A.

Rees

(2005), “Audit Failure, Litigation, and Insurance in Early Twentieth Century Britain”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.3, pp.13–38.

67.

Christensen

(2002), “Accrual Accounting in the Public Sector: The Case of New South Wales Government”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.2, pp.93–124.

68.

Ciardi

(1972), Manner of Speaking, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

69.

Cinquini

Marelli

Tebucci

(2008), “An Analysis of Publishing Patterns in Accounting Research in Italy, 1990–2004”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.35, No.1, pp.1–48.

70.

Clarke

(2005) “The Story of Bernard F. Shields: The First Professor of Accountancy in the UK”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.2, pp.103–23.

71.

Cobbin

P.E.

Burrows

G.H.

(2010), “The British Navy’s 1888 Budgetary Reforms”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.2, pp.153–72.

72.

Cook

(2001), “Fashionable Nonsense or Professional Rebirth: Postmodernism and the Practice of Archives”, Archivaria, No.51, Spring, pp.14–35.

73.

Cooper

(2008), “Mary Addison Hamilton, Australia’s First Lady of Numbers”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.2, pp.135–61.

74.

Cooper

(2010), “Accounting by Women: Fear, Favour and the Path to International Recognition for Australian Women Accountants”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.3, pp.309–36.

75.

Cordery

(2006), Hallowed Treasures: Sacred, Secular and the Wesleyan Methodists in New Zealand, 1819–1840”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.2, pp.199–220.

76.

Cordery

C.J.

Baskerville

R.F.

(2007), “Charity Financial Reporting Regulation: A Comparative Study of the UK and New Zealand”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.1, pp.7–27.

77.

Craig

R.J.

Greinke

A.J.

(1994), “Accounting History and Governmental Enquiries: An Experiment in Adversarial Roleplay”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.21, No.2, pp.117–34.

78.

Craig

Ó Hógartaigh

(2004), “‘Clowns of No Account’? Reflections on the Involvement of Four Irishmen in the Commercial Life of the Colony of New South Wales, 1788–1818”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.2, pp.63–85.

79.

Cummings

St Leon

M.V.

(2009), “Juggling the Books: The Use of Accounting Information in Circus in Australia”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.1/2, pp.11–33.

80.

Cunningham

(2004), “The Creative Industries after Cultural Policy: A Genealogy and Some Possible Preferred Futures”, International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol.7, No.1, pp.105–15.

81.

Davison

(2007), “Photographs and Accountability: Cracking the Codes of an NGO”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.20, No.1, pp.133–58.

82.

Davison

Warren

(2009), “Imag[in]ing Accounting and Accountability”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.22, No.6, pp.845–57.

83.

De Beedle

(2000), “Financial Reporting in Belgium: Case Studies on Collieries, 1900–1950”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.1, pp.85–110.

84.

De Loo

Davis

(2003), “Black Swan Records, 1921 to 1924: From a Swanky Swan to a Dead Duck”, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.2, pp.35–60.

85.

Dimnik

Felton

(2006), “Accountant Stereotypes in Movies Distributed in North America in the Twentieth Century”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.31, No.2, pp.129–55.

86.

Djatej

Sarikas

(2009), “The Second World War and Soviet Accounting”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.1/2, pp.35–54.

87.

Donoso Anes

(2002), “Accounting for the Estates of Deceased Travellers: An Example of Early Spanish Double Entry Bookkeeping”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.1, pp.79–99.

88.

Doron

M.E.

(2009), “The End of the Disinterested Profession: The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Union Corruption Scandals, 1957–62”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.3, pp.223–34.

89.

Dunn

Sikka

(1998), “The Emergence of the UK Auditor Resignation Legislation”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.1, pp.95–113.

90.

Emery

Hooks

Stewart

(2002), “Born at the Wrong Time? An Oral History of Women Professional Accountants in New Zealand”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.2, pp.7–34.

91.

Evans

(2010), “Observations on the Changing Language of Accounting”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.4, pp.439–62.

92.

Faria

A.R.S.D.S.

(2008), “An Analysis of Accounting History Research in Portugal: 1990–2004”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.3, pp.353–82.

93.

Fleischman

R.K.

(2004), “Confronting Moral Issues from Accounting’s Dark Side”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.1, pp.7–23.

94.

Fleischman

R.K.

Kalbers

L.P.

Parker

L.D.

(1996a), “Expanding the Dialogue: Industrial Revolution Costing Historiography”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol.7, No.3, pp.315–37.

95.

Fleischman

R.K.

Mills

P.A.

Tyson

T.N.

(1996b), “A Theoretical Primer for Evaluating and Conducting Historical Research in Accounting”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.1, pp.55–75.

96.

Fleischman

R.K.

Oldroyd

Tyson

T.N.

(2004), “Monetising Human Life: Slave Valuations on US and British West Indian Plantations”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.2, pp.35–62.

97.

Fleischman

R.K.

Radcliffe

V.S.

(2003), “Divergent Streams of Accounting History: A Review and Call for Confluence”, in Fleischman

R.K.

Radcliffe

V.S.

Shoemaker

P.A.

(eds.), Doing Accounting History: Contributions to the Development of Accounting Thought, Oxford: Elsevier, pp.1–30.

98.

Fleischman

R.K.

Radcliffe

V.S.

(2005), “The Roaring Nineties: Accounting History Comes of Age”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.32, No.1, pp.61–109.

99.

Fleischman

R.K.

Tyson

T.N.

(2000), “The Interface of Race and Accounting: The Case of Hawaiian Sugar Plantations, 1835–1920”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.1, pp.7–32.

100.

Fleischman

R.K.

Tyson

T.N.

(2002), “The Interface of Race and Accounting: A Reply to Burrows”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.1, pp.115–22.

101.

Fleming

R.J.

Graci

Thompson

J.E.

(2004), “An Examination of Early US Twentieth Century First-year Accounting Textbooks”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.1, pp.61–90.

102.

Flesher

D.L.

Elam

Flesher

T.K.

(2010), “Library Resources for Studying Accounting History: A Research Note”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.1, pp.121–31.

103.

Flesher

D.L.

Samson

W.D.

Previts

G.J.

(2003), “Accounting, Economic Development and Financial Reporting: The Case of Three Pre-Civil War US Railroads”, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.2, pp.61–77.

104.

Fogarty

T.J.

Dirsmith

M.W.

(2005), “Saving Chrysler: The Use and Non-use of Accounting Information by the US Congress”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.3, pp.89–115.

105.

Foreman

(2001), “The Transfer of Accounting Technology: A Study of the Commonwealth of Australia Government Factories, 1910–1916”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.1, pp.31–59.

106.

Foreman

Tyson

T.N.

(1998), “Accounting, Accountability and Cost Efficiency at the Commonwealth of Australia Clothing Factory, 1911–1918”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.2, pp.7–36.

107.

Fowler

(2010) “Financing, Accounting and Accountability in Colonial New Zealand: The Case of the Nelson School Society (1842–52)”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.3, pp.337–69.

108.

Fúnez

D.R.

(2005), “The Interface of Disciplinary Practices and Accounting: The Case of the Royal Tobacco Factory of Seville, 1761–1790”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.1, pp.71–97.

109.

Funnell

(1996), “Preserving History in Accounting: Seeking Common Ground between ‘New’ and ‘Old’ Accounting History”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.9, No.4, pp.38–64.

110.

Funnell

(1997), “Military Influences on the Evolution of Public Sector Audit and Accounting 1830–1880”, Accounting History, Vol.2, No.2, pp.9–29.

111.

Funnell

(1998), “The Narrative and Its Place in the New Accounting History: The Rise of the Counternarrative”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.11, No.2, pp.142–62.

112.

Funnell

(2004), “Victorian Parsimony and the Early Champions of Modern Public Sector Audit”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.1, pp.25–60.

113.

Funnell

(2008), “The ‘Proper Trust of Liberty’: Economical Reform, the English Constitution and the Protections of Accounting during the American War of Independence”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.1, pp.7–32.

114.

Gabriel

(2008), Organizing Words: A Critical Thesaurus for Social and Organization Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

115.

Godfrey

Hooper

(1996), “Accountability and Decision-making in Feudal England: Domesday Book Revisited”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.1, pp.35–54.

116.

Gomes

(2008), “The Interplay of Conceptions of Accounting and Schools of Thought in Accounting History”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.4, pp.479–509.

117.

Gomes

Carnegie

G.D.

Napier

C.J.

Parker

L.D.

West

(2011), “Does Accounting History Matter?”, (2011/forthcoming), Accounting History.

118.

Greer

(2009), “‘In the Interests of the Children’: Accounting in the Control of Aboriginal Family Endowment Payments”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.1/2, pp.166–91.

119.

Guthrie

Parker

(2006), “Editorial: The Coming out of Accounting Research Specialisms”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.19, No.1, pp.5–16.

120.

Gutiérrez

Romero

(2007), “The 1770s, A Lively Decade for Quality Control: The Case of the Royal Tobacco Factory of Seville”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.4, pp.393–415.

121.

Gwilliam

Macve

Meeks

(2000), “Principals and Agents in Crisis: Reforms of Accounting and Audit at Lloyd’s, 1982–1986”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.2, pp.61–92.

122.

Hammond

(2003), “History from Accounting’s Margins: International Research on Race and Gender”, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.1, pp.9–24.

123.

Hammond

Arnold

P.J.

Clayton

B.M.

(2007), “Recounting a Difficult Past: A South African Accounting Firm’s ‘Experiences in Transformation’”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.3, pp.253–81.

124.

Hammond

Clayton

B.M.

Arnold

P.J.

(2009), “South Africa’s Transition from Apartheid: The Role of Professional Closure in the Experiences of Black Chartered Accountants”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.34, No.6–7, pp.705–21.

125.

Heier

J.R.

(2010), “Accounting for the Ravages of War: Corporate Reporting at a Troubled American Railroad during the Civil War”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.2, pp.199–228.

126.

Heier

J.R.

Dugan

M.T.

Sayers

D.L.

(2005), “A Century of Debate for Internal Controls and their Assessment: A Study of Reactive Evolution”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.3, pp.39–70.

127.

Hernández-Esteve

(1995), “A Review of Spanish Research in Accounting, Business & Financial History”, Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol.5, No.2, pp.237–69.

128.

Hernández-Esteve

(2008), “Some Reflections on the Orientations and Volume of Accounting History Research in the 21^st Century”, De Computis, No.9, December, pp.97–135.

129.

Hollister

Schultz

S.M.

(2007), “The Elting and Hasbrouck Store Accounts: A Window into Eighteenth-Century Commerce”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.4, pp.417–40.

130.

Hollister

Schultz

S.M.

(2010), “Slavery and Emancipation in Rural New York: Evidence from Nineteenth-Century Accounting Records”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.3, pp.371–405.

131.

Hooper

(2006), “Using William the Conqueror’s Accounting Record to Assess Manorial Efficiency: A Critical Appraisal”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.1, pp.63–72.

132.

Hooper

Kearins

(2004), “Financing New Zealand 1860–1880: Maori Land and the Wealth Tax Effect”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.2, pp.87–105.

133.

Hooper

K.C.

Kearins

(2003), “Substance But Not Form: Capital Taxation and Public Finance in New Zealand, 1840–1859’, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.2, pp.101–19.

134.

Jeacle

(2008), “Accounting and the Annual General Meeting: The Case of the Edinburgh University Tea Club, 1920–45”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.4, pp.451–78.

135.

Jeremy

D.J.

(ed.) (1991), International Technology Transfer: Europe, Japan and The USA, 1700–1914, Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.

136.

Johnson

H.T.

(2002), “A Former Management Accountant Reflects on his Journey through the World of Cost Management”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.1, pp.9–21.

137.

Johnson

Potter

(1997), “The Australasian Method for Recording Share Issues: Origins, Adoption and Institutionalisation”, Accounting History, Vol.2, No.1, pp.81–104.

138.

Jones

B.O.

(1995), Sleepers, Wake! Technology and the Future of Work, new edn, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

139.

Jones

(1999), “UK Companies Legislation: Accounting Publicity and ‘Mercantile Caution’: A Response to Maltby”, Accounting History, Vol.4, No.2, pp.73–86.

140.

Keenan

M.G.

(2000), “Between Anarchy and Authority: The New Zealand Society of Accountants’ Management of Crisis, 1989–1993”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.2, pp.93–119.

141.

Keneley

(2008), “The Curious Case of the Occidental and Regal: The Evolution of Solvency and Disclosure Standards in the Australian Life Insurance Industry”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.3, pp.313–32.

142.

Keneley

M.J.

(2010), “The Demise of the Mutual Life Insurer: An Analysis of the Impact of Regulatory Change on the Performance of Australian Life Insurers in the 1990s”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.1, pp.65–91.

143.

Kininmonth

K.W.

McKinstry

(2007), “Stitching it Up: Accounting and Financial Control at J and P Coats Ltd, c1890–1960”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.4, pp.367–91.

144.

Kirkham

Loft

(1993), “Gender and the Construction of the Professional Accountant”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.18, No.6, pp.507–58.

145.

Komori

(2007), “The ‘Hidden’ History of Accounting in Japan: A Historical Examination of the Relationship between Japanese Women and Accounting”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.3, pp.329–58.

146.

Lee

(2005), “The Search for ‘True North’ in Corporate Financial Reporting”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.2, pp.147–56.

147.

Lee

T.A.

(2006), “The Professional Journal as a Signal of Movement to Occupational Ascendancy and as Legitimation of a Professional Project: The Early History of The Accountant’s Magazine 1897–1951”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.1, pp.7–40.

148.

Lee

T.A.

(2010), “Consolidating the Public Accountancy Profession: The Case of the Proposed Institute of Chartered Accountants of Great Britain, 1988–9”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.1, pp.5–39.

149.

Lehman

C.R.

(1992), “‘Herstory’ in Accounting: The First Eighty Years”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.17, No.3–4, pp.261–85.

150.

Lemarchand

(2002), “The Military Origins of the French Management Accounting Model: A Return to the Mechanisms of Accounting Change”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.1, pp.23–57.

151.

Lightbody

M.G.

(2009), “Turnover Decisions of Women Accountants: Using Personal Histories to Understand the Relative Influence of Domestic Obligations”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.1/2, pp.55–78.

152.

Lippman

E.J.

Wilson

P.A.

(2007), “The Culpability of Accounting in Perpetuating the Holocaust”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.3, pp.283–303.

153.

Liyanarachchi

(2009), “Accounting in Ancient Sri Lanka: Some Evidence of the Accounting and Auditing Practices of Buddhist Monasteries during 815–1017 AD”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.1/2, pp.101–20.

154.

Lord

Robb

(2010), “Women Students and Staff in Accountancy: The Canterbury Tales”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.4, pp.529–58.

155.

Aiken

(2004), “Origins and Evolution of Chinese Writing Systems and Preliminary Counting Relationships”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.3, pp.25–51.

156.

Luther

(2003), “Uniform Accounting Periods: An Historical Review and Critique”, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.2, pp.79–100.

157.

Maltby

(1998), “UK Joint Stock Companies Legislation 1844–1900: Accounting Publicity and ‘Mercantile Caution’”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.1, pp.9–32.

158.

Maltby

(1999), “Accounting Does not ‘Evolve’: A Reply to Jones”, Accounting History, Vol.4, No.2, pp.87–100.

159.

Maltby

(2000), “Was the Companies Act 1947 A Response to a National Crisis?”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.2, pp.31–60.

160.

Marriott

Fowler

(2007), “From Social Policy to Economic Policy: Taxation Incentives for Retirement Income Savings in New Zealand (1910–2005)”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.1, pp.87–115.

161.

Marton

Booth

(1997), Learning and Awareness, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

162.

Mayer-Sommer

A.P.

(2010), “So Many Controls; So Little Control: The Case of Isaac Henderson, Navy Agent at New York, 1861–4”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.2, pp.173–98.

163.

McCarthy

Sangster

Stoner

(2008), “Pacioli and Humanism: Pitching the Text in Summa Arithmetica”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.2, pp.183–206.

164.

McClelland

Stanton

(2004), “‘An Ignorant Set of Men’. An Episode in the Clash of the Legal and Accounting Professions over Jurisdiction”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.2, pp.107–26.

165.

McDonald

(2005), “Using William the Conqueror's Accounting Record to Assess Manorial Efficiency”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.2, pp.125–45.

166.

McDonald

(2006), “Analysing Historical Data: A Justification of the Use of Quantitative Methods”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.1, pp.73–84.

167.

McKinstry

Wallace

Fleming

A.I.

(2002), “Making a Cast-iron Case: Accountants and the Carron Lawsuits of the 1850s and 1860s”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.2, pp.35–57.

168.

McMillan

K.P.

(1998), “Efficient Accounting Systems: Justifying US Accounting Practice in an Unregulated Commercial Environment”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.1, pp.115–39.

169.

McWatters

C.S.

(1998), “Accounting Thought, Practice and Legislation: Early Canadian Evidence”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.2, pp.103–42.

170.

McWatters

C.S.

(2002), “A Counter-example in the Development of Great Lakes Shipping: The Case of the Kingston Shipping Company Limited”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.2, pp.59–92.

171.

McWatters

C.S.

Foreman

(2005), “Reaction to World War I Constraints to Normal Trade: The Meat-packing Industry in Canada and Australia”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.2, pp.67–102.

172.

Merino

B.D.

(1998), “Critical Theory and Accounting History: Challenges and Opportunities”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol.9, No.9, pp.603–16.

173.

Miller

Napier

C.J.

(1993), “Genealogies of Calculation”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.18, No.7–8, pp.631–47.

174.

Moerman

(2008), “The Biblical Jubilee: Old Wineskin for a New Wine”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.2, pp.207–26.

175.

Mussari

(2006), “Bookkeeping in the Sixteenth-century Building Yard of the Castello of Crotone: An Accountancy and Architectural Analysis”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.3, pp.319–55.

176.

Napier

C.J.

(2001), “Accounting History and Accounting Progress”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.2, pp.7–31.

177.

Napier

C.J.

(2006), “Accounts of Change: 30 Years of Historical Accounting Research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.31, No.4–5, pp.445–507.

178.

Napier

(2009), “Defining Islamic Accounting: Current Issues, Past Roots”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.1/2, pp.121–44.

179.

Napier

C.J.

(2011), “Accounting at the London School of Economics: Opportunity Lost?”, Accounting History, Vol.16, No.2, pp.185–205.

180.

Nikitin

(2001), “The Birth of a Modern Public Sector Accounting System in France and Britain and the Influence of Count Mollien”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.1, pp.71–101.

181.

Noguchi

Nakajima

(2008), “‘Working Rules for Financial Statements’ and pre-Second World War Financial Reporting of Japanese Industrial Firms: The Case of Chemical Firms”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.3, pp.281–311.

182.

Noke

(2007), “Advising the Act: The UK Companies Act Consultative Committee and Accountancy Advisory Committee 1948–72”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.2, pp.165–204.

183.

Normand

C.J.

Wootton

C.W.

(2010), “Use of Financial Statements to Legitimize a New Non-Profit Organization during the US Civil War: The Case of the Northwestern Sanitary Commission”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.1, pp.93–119.

184.

Oldroyd

(1997), “Accounting in Anglo-Saxon England: Context and Evidence”, Accounting History, Vol.2, No.1, pp.7–34.

185.

Parker

L.D.

(1997), “Informing Historical Research in Accounting and Management: Tradition, Philosophies and Opportunities”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.24, No.2, pp.111–49.

186.

Parker

L.D.

(1999), “Historiography for the New Millennium: Adventures in Accounting and Management”, Accounting History, Vol.4, No.2, pp.11–42.

187.

Parker

L.D.

(2001), “Back to the Future: The Broadening Accounting Trajectory”, British Accounting Review, Vol.33, No.4, pp.421–53.

188.

Parker

R.H.

(1993), “The Scope of Accounting History: A Note”, ABACUS, Vol.29, No.1, pp.106–110.

189.

Parker

R.H.

(1997), “Roger North: Gentleman, Accountant and Lexicographer”, Accounting History, Vol.2, No.2, pp.31–51.

190.

Parker

R.H.

(2002), “Henry Rand Hatfield (1866–1945): The Triumphs and Travails of an Academic Accounting Pioneer”, Accounting History, Vol.7, No.2, pp.125–36.

191.

Parker

R.H.

(2005), “Naming and Branding: Accountants and Accountancy Bodies in the British Empire and Commonwealth, 1853–2003”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.1, pp.7–46.

192.

Perrin

R.W.

(1997), “A Little Potpourri of History, Politics, Current Affairs and Business: Strategy and Content for a ‘Slow’ Accounting Class”, Fifth Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference, Manchester, England, 7–9 July.

193.

Pitts

Wale

(2008), “‘Comparisons are Odorous’ (Shakespeare): Financial Performance and Management Competence at Four Scottish Colliery Companies, 1900–46”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.4, pp.511–43.

194.

Pitts

M.V.

(1998), “Did Dividends Dictate Depreciation in British Coal Companies 1864–1914”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.2, pp.37–67.

195.

Pitts

M.V.

(2001), “In Praise of the ‘Other’ William Armstrong: A Nineteenth Century British Engineer and Early Management Consultant”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.2, pp.33–58.

196.

Pitzl

G.R.

(2004), Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

197.

Platonova

(2009), “Peter the Great’s Government Reforms and Accounting Practice in Russia”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.4, pp.437–64.

198.

Pong

C.K.M.

(1999), “Jurisdictional Contests between Accountants and Lawyers: The Case of Off-balance Sheet Finance 1985–1990”, Accounting History, Vol.4, No.1, pp.7–29.

199.

Potter

(1999), “The Power of Words: Explaining Recent Accounting Reforms in the Australian Public Sector”, Accounting History, Vol.4, No.2, pp.43–72.

200.

Potter

B.N.

(2003), “The Louis Goldberg Collection at Deakin University: Exploring a Rich Foundation for Accounting History”, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.2, pp.9–34.

201.

Previts

G.J.

Parker

L.D.

Coffman

E.N.

(1990a), “Accounting History: Definition and Relevance”, ABACUS, Vol.26, No.1, pp.1–16.

202.

Previts

G.J.

Parker

L.D.

Coffman

E.N.

(1990b), “An Accounting Historiography: Subject Matter and Methodology”, ABACUS, Vol.26, No.2, pp.136–58.

203.

Prieto

Maté

Tua

(2006), “The Accounting Records of the Monastery of Silos Throughout the Eighteenth Century: The Accumulation and Management of its Patrimony in the Light of its Accounting Books”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.2, pp.221–56.

204.

Prieto-Moreno

M.B.

Larrinaga-González

(2001), “Cost Accounting in Eighteenth Century Spain: The Royal Textile Factory of Ezcaray”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.2, pp.59–90.

205.

Riccaboni

Giovannoni

Giorgi

Moscadelli

(2006), “Accounting and Power: Evidence from the Fourteenth Century”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.1, pp.41–62.

206.

Richardson

A.J.

(2008), “Strategies in the Development of Accounting History as an Academic Discipline”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.3, pp.247–80.

207.

Richardson

Jones

D.G.B.

(2007), “Professional ‘Brand’, Personal Identity and Resistance to Change in the Canadian Accounting Profession: A Comparative History of Two Accounting Association Merger Negotiations”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.2, pp.135–64.

208.

Richardson

A.J.

Young

J.J.

(2011), “Histories of Accounting Research – An Introduction”, Accounting History, Vol.16, No.2, pp.133–7.

209.

Robb

A.J.

Shanahan

Lord

B.R.

(2006), “Ernest Adams Ltd: The Demise of a Family Business”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.3, pp.357–79.

210.

Rodrigues

L.L.

Craig

Gomes

(2007), “State Intervention in Commercial Education: The Case of the Portuguese School of Commerce, 1759”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.1, pp.55–85.

211.

Rodrigues

L.L.

Gomes

Craig

(2004), “The Portuguese School of Commerce, 1759–1844: A Reflection of the ‘Enlightenment’”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.3, pp.53–71.

212.

Rodrigues

L.L.

Ricardino

Martins

S.T.A.

(2009), “‘Corporate Governance Regulations’: A New Term for an Ancient Concern? The Case of Grão Pará and Maranhão General Trading Company in Portugal (1754)’, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.4, pp.405–35.

213.

Romeo

Rigsby

J.T.

(2008) “Disseminating Professionalism: The Influence of Selden Hopkins on the US Accounting Profession”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.4, pp.415–50.

214.

Romeo

G.C.

Leauby

(2004), “The Bookkeepers’ Beneficial Association of Philadelphia: An Early Signal in the United States for a Professional Organisation”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.2, pp.7–33.

215.

Roy

S.P.

Spraakman

(1996), “Transaction Cost Economics and Nineteenth Century Fur Trade Accounting: Relevance of a Contemporary Theory”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.2, pp.55–78.

216.

Rutherford

B.A.

(1999), “Creative Compliance and Behaviour in Response to Mandatory Changes in Accounting Policy: Three Cases from Pre-Dearing Britain”, Accounting History, Vol.4, No.1, pp.31–58.

217.

Rutterford

(2010), “Gross or Net? The Role of Taxation in the History of Equity Valuation”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.1, pp.41–64.

218.

Rutterford

Maltby

(2007), “‘The Nesting Instinct’: Women and Investment Risk in a Historical Context”, Accounting History, Vol.12, No.3, pp.305–27.

219.

Rutterford

Maltby

Green

D.R.

Owens

(2009), “Researching Shareholding and Investment in England and Wales: Approaches, Sources and Methods”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.3, pp.269–92.

220.

Salamon

L.M.

Anheier

H.K.

(1992), “In Search of the Non-Profit Sector I: The Question of Definitions”, Voluntas, Vol.3, No.2, pp.125–161.

221.

Samkin

(2010), “Trader Sailor Spy: The Case of John Pringle and the Transfer of Accounting Technology to the Cape of Good Hope”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.4, pp.505–28.

222.

Samson

W.D.

Allen

C.L.

Fleischman

R.K.

Robinson-Backmon

I.B.

(2006), “Using A White-Collar Profession in Accounting Courses: Approaches to Addressing Diversity”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.33, No.1, pp.25–52.

223.

Sargiacomo

(2006), “Using Accounting Records to Enhance an Understanding of a Seventeenth-century Italian Feudal Community: The Case of the Commune of Penne (1664–90)”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.4, pp.475–502.

224.

Sargiacomo

(2009), “Accounting for the ‘Good Administration of Justice’: The Farnese State of Abruzzo in the Sixteenth Century”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.3, pp.235–67.

225.

Schäffer

Binder

(2008), “‘Controlling’ as an Academic Discipline: The Development of Management Accounting and Management Control Research in German-speaking Countries between 1970 and 2003”, Accounting History, Vol.13, No.1, pp.33–74.

226.

Scorgie

M.E.

(1996), “Production Planning in Seventeenth Century China”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.2, pp.37–54.

227.

Scorgie

M.E.

Reiss

J.A.

(1997), “The Impact of Naval Experience on Accounting in Colonial Australia from 1788 to 1792”, Accounting History, Vol.2, No.2, pp.53–76.

228.

Slocum

E.L.

Sriram

R.S.

(2001), “Accounting History: A Survey of Academic Interest in the U.S.”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.28, No.1, pp.111–30.

229.

Smith

Jacobs

(2011), “‘Breaking up the Sky’: The Characterisation of Accountants and Accounting in Popular Music”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.24, No.7, pp.904–31.

230.

Spraakman

Davidson

(1998), “Transaction Cost Economics as a Predictor of Management Accounting Practices at the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1860 to 1914”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.2, pp.69–101.

231.

Spraakman

Wilkie

(2000), “The Development of Management Accounting at the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1670–1820”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.1, pp.59–84.

232.

Tinker

(2005), “Archival Research and the Lost Worlds of Accounting”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.1, pp.47–69.

233.

Talbot

P.A.

(2010), “Colonel William Henry Sykes: His Contribution to Statistical Accounting”, Accounting History, Vol.15, No.2, pp.253–76.

234.

Teo

E.J.

Cobbin

P.E.

(2005), “A Revisitation of the ‘Audit Expectations Gap’: Judicial and Practitioner Views on the Role of the Auditor in Late-Victorian England”, Accounting History, Vol.10, No.2, pp.35–66.

235.

Tyson

T.N.

Davie

S.K.

(2009), “The Livret System: The Interface of Accounting and Indentured Labor in British Guiana”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.1/2, pp.145–65.

236.

Tyson

Oldroyd

(2007), “Straw Men and Old Saws: An Evidence Based Response to Sy and Tinker’s Critique of Accounting History”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.34, No.1, pp.173–93.

237.

Vent

Milne

R.A.

(1997), “Cost Accounting Practices at Precious Metal Mines: A Comparative Study 1869–1905”, Accounting History, Vol.2, No.2, pp.77–104.

238.

Virtanen

(2009a), “Accounting, Gender and History: The Life of Minna Canth”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.1/2, pp.79–100.

239.

Virtanen

(2009b), “Revealing Financial Accounting in Finland under Five Historical Themes”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.4, pp.357–79.

240.

Vollmers

Tyson

(2004), “A Personal Account Book of Joseph E. Bell: A Record of Survival in Nineteenth Century Rural America”, Accounting History, Vol.9, No.3, pp.89–109.

241.

Walker

S.P.

(1996), “The Criminal Upperworld and the Emergence of a Disciplinary Code in the Early Chartered Accountancy Profession”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.2, pp.7–35.

242.

Walker

S.P.

(1998a), “How to Secure Your Husband’s Esteem: Accounting and Private Patriarchy in the British Middle Class Household during the Nineteenth Century”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.23, No.5–6, pp.485–514.

243.

Walker

S.P.

(1998b), “More Sherry and Sandwiches? Incrementalism and the Regulation of Late Victorian Bank Auditing”, Accounting History, Vol.3, No.1, pp.33–54.

244.

Walker

S.P.

(2005), “Accounting in History”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.32, No.2, pp.233–59.

245.

Walker

S.P.

(2006), “Current Trends in Accounting History”, Irish Accounting Review, Vol.13, No.1, pp.107–21.

246.

Walker

S.P.

(2008), “Innovation, Convergence and Argument without End in Accounting History”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.21, No.2, pp.296–322.

247.

Walker

S.P.

Llewellyn

(2000), “Accounting at Home: Some Interdisciplinary Perspectives”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.13, No.4, pp.425–49.

248.

Walsh

R.J.

(2001), “An Historical Framework for the Federal Taxation of Dividend and Interest Payments in the US”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.1, pp.61–74.

249.

Warnock

(2008), “Auditing Bloom, Editing Joyce: Accounting and Accountability in Ulysses”, Accounting, Business & Financial History, Vol.18, No.1, pp.81–95.

250.

West

B.P.

(1996), “The Professionalisation of Accounting: A Review of Recent Historical Research and Its Implications”, Accounting History, Vol.1, No.1, pp.77–102.

251.

West

B.P.

(2001), “On the Social History of Accounting: The Bank Audit by Bruce Marshall”, Accounting History, Vol.6, No.1, pp.11–30.

252.

Williams

Wines

(2006), “The First 10 years of Accounting History as an International Refereed Journal: 1996–2005”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.4, pp.419–45.

253.

Williams

(1997), “Inscribing the Workers: An Experiment in Factory Discipline or the Inculcation of Manners? A Case in Context”, Accounting History, Vol.2, No.1, pp.35–60.

254.

Williams

R.B.

(1999), “Lifting Stones: A Place for Microhistory in Accounting Research?”, Accounting History, Vol.4, No.1, pp.59–78.

255.

Wootton

C.W.

Moore

M.V.

(2000), “The Legal Status of Account Books in Colonial America”, Accounting History, Vol.5, No.1, pp.33–58.

256.

Wootton

C.W.

Wolk

C.M.

Normand

(2003), “An Historical Perspective on Mergers and Acquisitions by Major US Accounting Firms”, Accounting History, Vol.8, No.1, pp.25–60.

257.

Wright

F.K.

(2006), “Depreciation Theory in the 1960s”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.1, pp.85–95.

258.

Yapa

P.W.S.

(2006), “Cross-border Competition and the Professionalization of Accounting: The Case of Sri Lanka”, Accounting History, Vol.11, No.4, pp.447–73.

259.

Zan

(1994), “Toward a History of Accounting Histories: Perspectives from the Italian Tradition”, The European Accounting Review, Vol.3, No.2, pp.255–307.

260.

Zan

(2004), “Writing Accounting and Management History: Insights from Unorthodox Music Historiography”, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.31, No.2, pp.171–92.

261.

Zelinschi

(2009), “Legitimacy, Expertise and Closure in the Romanian Accountant’s Professional Project, 1900–16”, Accounting History, Vol.14, No.4, pp.381–403.