{"title":"的确,“他们在那里做事方式不同”","authors":"C. McWatters","doi":"10.1080/21552851.2018.1506553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘Why study the past? Those of us who pursue historical research or teach courses in history will not be lost for a response to this question. It is a question frequently posed to authors who submit manuscripts, re-phrased more pointedly as ‘why is your study of interest?’ At some stage, every researcher must respond with more than ‘because it is’. One might respond with citation counts, downloads and the ‘impact’ metrics that litter the research landscape as indicators of value and interest. On a more basic level, the response to ‘why history’ is dynamic as we confront and navigate the past. In his introduction to The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited, David Leventhal (2015) discusses how the past became foreign, arguing that until recently – in historical terms – historians viewed the past as something ‘as though just then occurring (p. 6)’. As Leventhal notes, ‘the past ain’t what it used to be (p.9).’ Indeed, our own discipline and this journal bear witness to this truism. Nonetheless, where dynamism exists, there is also continuity. History may interface with other disciplines, adopt and adapt theories from areas of social science, dabble (or more than dabble) with Cliometrics, but it remains history. We can look to the many hyphenated histories, some of which have come and gone, been transformed or drifted in and out of fashion. Patrick Manning (2003) has expressed thoughtful optimism about history’s continuity amidst on-going debates, change and innovation. In this issue, we have studies which represent the diversity of our scholarship and the space for such diversity within our journal. In their examination of community building amidst the amalgamation of Milan and Corpi Santi, Enrico Guarini, Francesca Magli and Alberto Nobolo demonstrate how accounting change and innovation took place due to external forces but also underscore the role played by internal actors engaged in this institutionalisation process. When discussing this study with the author team, I suggested that they reflect on their conclusion. While I am not a huge proponent of ‘lessons for today’, it was a question that I asked them to contemplate. The final paragraph of their study encapsulates their response. Its emphasis on community building in light of efforts to restrict boundaries and borders is a thoughtful commentary and one which makes their study all the more relevant in current circumstances. In a very different study, Martin E. Persson and Stephan Fafatas bring renewed and welcome attention to the work of Harold C. Edey, thanks to a chance encounter in the archive, specifically Edey’s one-act play used to explore the issues of profit determination during periods of changing prices. The play is of interest on many levels from its treatment of on-going issues of accounting measurement, its innovative pedagogy, and as a reminder of how accounting theory and ‘big questions’ do matter – elements that appear lost in the current training of accounting (doctoral) students. The study has benefitted from engagement with Edey’s colleagues and former students, enabling the authors to take advantage of their insights and perspectives on both Edey and the development of accounting thought, in particular with respect to the place of the London School of Economics and Political Science in this development in the period following World War II.","PeriodicalId":43233,"journal":{"name":"Accounting History Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Indeed, ‘they do things differently there’\",\"authors\":\"C. McWatters\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21552851.2018.1506553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"‘Why study the past? Those of us who pursue historical research or teach courses in history will not be lost for a response to this question. It is a question frequently posed to authors who submit manuscripts, re-phrased more pointedly as ‘why is your study of interest?’ At some stage, every researcher must respond with more than ‘because it is’. One might respond with citation counts, downloads and the ‘impact’ metrics that litter the research landscape as indicators of value and interest. On a more basic level, the response to ‘why history’ is dynamic as we confront and navigate the past. In his introduction to The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited, David Leventhal (2015) discusses how the past became foreign, arguing that until recently – in historical terms – historians viewed the past as something ‘as though just then occurring (p. 6)’. As Leventhal notes, ‘the past ain’t what it used to be (p.9).’ Indeed, our own discipline and this journal bear witness to this truism. Nonetheless, where dynamism exists, there is also continuity. History may interface with other disciplines, adopt and adapt theories from areas of social science, dabble (or more than dabble) with Cliometrics, but it remains history. We can look to the many hyphenated histories, some of which have come and gone, been transformed or drifted in and out of fashion. Patrick Manning (2003) has expressed thoughtful optimism about history’s continuity amidst on-going debates, change and innovation. In this issue, we have studies which represent the diversity of our scholarship and the space for such diversity within our journal. In their examination of community building amidst the amalgamation of Milan and Corpi Santi, Enrico Guarini, Francesca Magli and Alberto Nobolo demonstrate how accounting change and innovation took place due to external forces but also underscore the role played by internal actors engaged in this institutionalisation process. When discussing this study with the author team, I suggested that they reflect on their conclusion. While I am not a huge proponent of ‘lessons for today’, it was a question that I asked them to contemplate. The final paragraph of their study encapsulates their response. Its emphasis on community building in light of efforts to restrict boundaries and borders is a thoughtful commentary and one which makes their study all the more relevant in current circumstances. In a very different study, Martin E. Persson and Stephan Fafatas bring renewed and welcome attention to the work of Harold C. Edey, thanks to a chance encounter in the archive, specifically Edey’s one-act play used to explore the issues of profit determination during periods of changing prices. The play is of interest on many levels from its treatment of on-going issues of accounting measurement, its innovative pedagogy, and as a reminder of how accounting theory and ‘big questions’ do matter – elements that appear lost in the current training of accounting (doctoral) students. The study has benefitted from engagement with Edey’s colleagues and former students, enabling the authors to take advantage of their insights and perspectives on both Edey and the development of accounting thought, in particular with respect to the place of the London School of Economics and Political Science in this development in the period following World War II.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43233,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting History Review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting History Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21552851.2018.1506553\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21552851.2018.1506553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
“为什么要研究过去?”我们这些从事历史研究或教授历史课程的人不会因为这个问题的回答而迷失方向。这是一个经常被提交手稿的作者问到的问题,更尖锐地改为“为什么你的研究让人感兴趣?”在某个阶段,每个研究人员的回答都不只是“因为它是”。有人可能会用引用数、下载量和“影响”指标来回应,这些指标是研究领域的价值和兴趣指标。在更基本的层面上,当我们面对和驾驭过去时,对“为什么历史”的回答是动态的。David Leventhal(2015)在他的《过去是一个外国——重访》的引言中讨论了过去是如何成为外国的,他认为直到最近,从历史的角度来看,历史学家将过去视为“好像刚刚发生的事情”(第6页)。正如利文塔尔所言,“过去已今非昔比”(第9页)。的确,我们自己的学科和这本杂志见证了这一真理。尽管如此,只要有活力,就会有连续性。历史可能与其他学科相结合,采用和调整社会科学领域的理论,涉猎(或不止涉猎)计量学,但它仍然是历史。我们可以看看许多交织在一起的历史,其中一些来了又走了,被改造了,或者流行了又过时。帕特里克·曼宁(Patrick Manning, 2003)在持续的辩论、变革和创新中,对历史的连续性表达了深思熟虑的乐观态度。在这一期中,我们的研究代表了我们学术的多样性,以及我们期刊中这种多样性的空间。Enrico Guarini、Francesca Magli和Alberto Nobolo对米兰和Corpi Santi合并期间的社区建设进行了研究,他们展示了会计变化和创新是如何由于外部力量而发生的,但也强调了参与这一制度化过程的内部行动者所发挥的作用。在与作者团队讨论这个研究时,我建议他们反思他们的结论。虽然我不是“今天的教训”的巨大支持者,但这是一个我要求他们思考的问题。他们研究的最后一段概括了他们的回答。它强调在限制边界和边界的努力下建立社区,这是一个深思熟虑的评论,使他们的研究在当前情况下更加相关。在另一项截然不同的研究中,马丁·佩尔松(Martin E. Persson)和斯蒂芬·法塔斯(Stephan fatatas)重新引起了人们对哈罗德·c·埃迪(Harold C. Edey)作品的关注,这要归功于在档案中的一次偶然相遇,特别是埃迪的独幕剧,该独幕剧用于探索价格变化期间的利润决定问题。这部剧在很多层面上都很有趣,从它对会计计量问题的处理,创新的教学法,以及提醒人们会计理论和“大问题”是如何起作用的——这些因素似乎在当前的会计(博士)学生培训中丢失了。这项研究得益于与Edey的同事和以前的学生的接触,使作者能够利用他们对Edey和会计思想发展的见解和观点,特别是关于第二次世界大战后伦敦政治经济学院在这一发展中的地位。
‘Why study the past? Those of us who pursue historical research or teach courses in history will not be lost for a response to this question. It is a question frequently posed to authors who submit manuscripts, re-phrased more pointedly as ‘why is your study of interest?’ At some stage, every researcher must respond with more than ‘because it is’. One might respond with citation counts, downloads and the ‘impact’ metrics that litter the research landscape as indicators of value and interest. On a more basic level, the response to ‘why history’ is dynamic as we confront and navigate the past. In his introduction to The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited, David Leventhal (2015) discusses how the past became foreign, arguing that until recently – in historical terms – historians viewed the past as something ‘as though just then occurring (p. 6)’. As Leventhal notes, ‘the past ain’t what it used to be (p.9).’ Indeed, our own discipline and this journal bear witness to this truism. Nonetheless, where dynamism exists, there is also continuity. History may interface with other disciplines, adopt and adapt theories from areas of social science, dabble (or more than dabble) with Cliometrics, but it remains history. We can look to the many hyphenated histories, some of which have come and gone, been transformed or drifted in and out of fashion. Patrick Manning (2003) has expressed thoughtful optimism about history’s continuity amidst on-going debates, change and innovation. In this issue, we have studies which represent the diversity of our scholarship and the space for such diversity within our journal. In their examination of community building amidst the amalgamation of Milan and Corpi Santi, Enrico Guarini, Francesca Magli and Alberto Nobolo demonstrate how accounting change and innovation took place due to external forces but also underscore the role played by internal actors engaged in this institutionalisation process. When discussing this study with the author team, I suggested that they reflect on their conclusion. While I am not a huge proponent of ‘lessons for today’, it was a question that I asked them to contemplate. The final paragraph of their study encapsulates their response. Its emphasis on community building in light of efforts to restrict boundaries and borders is a thoughtful commentary and one which makes their study all the more relevant in current circumstances. In a very different study, Martin E. Persson and Stephan Fafatas bring renewed and welcome attention to the work of Harold C. Edey, thanks to a chance encounter in the archive, specifically Edey’s one-act play used to explore the issues of profit determination during periods of changing prices. The play is of interest on many levels from its treatment of on-going issues of accounting measurement, its innovative pedagogy, and as a reminder of how accounting theory and ‘big questions’ do matter – elements that appear lost in the current training of accounting (doctoral) students. The study has benefitted from engagement with Edey’s colleagues and former students, enabling the authors to take advantage of their insights and perspectives on both Edey and the development of accounting thought, in particular with respect to the place of the London School of Economics and Political Science in this development in the period following World War II.