Historians but not necessarily so*

Abstract

Recently, I was asked to take part in a conference panel entitled ‘Historians but not necessarily so’. While the intentions of the organisers remain uncertain, it was clear that the panel members interpreted this title as rather condescending – the organisers did not deem ‘we panellists’ to be real historians! All of us had pursued graduate studies in history, work primarily in the history of a specific discipline – accounting, management, nursing, education, performing arts – yet judged to be outsiders, one of those hyphenated historians. This outsider status results from the fact that we do not presently find ourselves situated in departments of history. Moreover, we frequently publish in journals that are discipline based. By the end of the session and from comments thereafter, it was reassuring to learn that we had opened a few eyes, perhaps broken down some disciplinary walls and stereotypes, and even fostered interest in our respective specialties. From another angle, we might ask ourselves as ‘accounting historians’ how often we make concrete and determined efforts to move beyond our disciplinary boundaries and engage with historians in other areas of the academy, whether in departments of history or other disciplinary homes. Furthermore, how warm is our welcome to those whose investigations examine issues and topics that make use of accounting materials and data but which are not what some of us consider to be the history of accounting. It is clear that opinions are diverse on the extent to which research in accounting history must make some tie, explicit or tangential, to the development of the accounting profession and techniques. While many – likely most – of us have been adept and creative in our borrowings from other disciplines, particularly social theory, we have less frequently engaged in interdisciplinary work with scholars not part of the accounting milieu. The infiltration of these scholars into our conferences and journals has received mixed reaction, particularly when these researchers challenge our preconceived notions with disciplinary debates and theoretical perspectives which are not our own or with which we are less familiar. I should note, however, that accounting historians have been less isolated than others in terms of strong links forged with business and economic history, including members of the Accounting History Review (AHR) editorial board. Bringing theories and approaches from other disciplines into our research has become standard operating procedure for us. We also are rather catholic in our borrowings, adopting the perspective or approach considered best suited to the research question at hand. Studies, which ground their analyses in social and economic theories (amongst others), are no longer the exception but rather the rule, especially for those who seek novel ways to examine old and long-standing questions and debates. Indeed, members of our editorial board are recognised well beyond the accounting academy for their expertise in a variety of theoretical approaches and their scholarly application. Our editorial board also deliberately includes scholars whose disciplinary and research expertise extends well beyond the history of accounting to include other areas of history, accounting and management.